2^ 



I LlBRiRY OF CONGUffiS. ? 



I UNITED STATUS Of AMERICA, | 



Iz-; 



C 



/Yt" 



IS SLAVERY SINFUL? 



BEING PARTIAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE PROPOSITION, 



SLAVERY IS SINFUL, 



BETWEEN O^HD BUTLER, ESQ., A BISHOP OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, AT INDIAN- 
APOLIS, IND., AND JEREMIAH SMITH, ESQ., LATE JUDGE OF THE IITH AND 
13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUITS, IND.; AND BETWEEN ELDER THOMAS WILEY, 
LATE PASTOR OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, AT UNION CITY, IND., AND 
JEREMIAH SMITH, LATE JUDGE OF THE IITH AND 13TH JUDICIAL 
CIRCUITS, INDLiNA ; WITH AN INTRODUCTION, EPISODE, 
AND CONCLUSION OF THE DISCUSSION. 



BY JEREMIAH "smith. 



INDIANAPOLIS: 

H. H. DODD & CO., PEINTERS AND BOOK BINDERS, 

1863. 



Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1863, 

BY JEREMIAH SMITH, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Indiana. 



DEDICATION. 



To all who love the truth; to all who are willing 
to "obey the truth;" to all who are willing to "do 
nothing against the truth, but for the truth;" to 
all who love their country, their fellow-citizens, 
their neighbors, themselves, and their posterity, 
this work is respectfully dedicated, 

BY THE AUTHOR. 



ERRATA 



Page 68, line 12 from bottom, for given read giving. 
Page 113, line 18 from bottom, insert the hef ore fanaticisjti. 
Page 154, line 10 from top, insert the before servant. 
Page 168, line 17 from bottom, insert that he before gave. 
Page 171, line 15 from bottom, for had read has. 
Page 177, line 13 from top, for ausioer read answers. 
Page 258, line 10 from bottom, insert shall before have produced. 
Page 268, line 6 from top, for inventors read inventor. 
Page 338, line 18 from top, for set read sit. 

There are other errors merely oi'thographical, Tvhich do not affect the 
sense, and hence are not noted. 



PREFACE. 



Our country is in a terrible condition. There is a cause, 
or causes, for its being so. All who love their country 
themselves and their posterity, should endeavor to ascertain 
the cause or causes of our present unhappy condition as a 
people, that by removing the cause of our troubles, we may 
restore the public health, vigor and prosperity. 

It is alleged by the dominant party, that the sin of sla- 
very is the cause of our calamities. If, however, slavery is 
not sinful, this is a false allegation. Hence, it behoves us 
all to examine the proposition, and ascertain correctly and 
satisfactorily^ whether it is true or false, that slavery is sin- 
ful. For, if the proposition is false, as the powers that be, 
the men who control the destinies of this great people, base 
their action upon the assumed truth of the proposition, they 
are shedding rivers of blood, and wasting millions of treas- 
ure, and making thousands of widows and orphans, carry- 
ing devastation, fire and sword throughout the land, and 
sweeping with the besom of destruction the fairest and 
hitherto the most blest and prosperous portion of God's 
foot-stool, upon a falsehood. If this is the true state of 
affairs, how great and how dreadful is the responsibility 
upon us as a nation and people ! andhow incumbent it is upon 
us to drop the falsehood, seek the truth, and pursue it ! ^ 

I am clearly satisfied that the proposition is false. The 



b PREFACE. 

object of this book is to show that it is false. It is my 
duty not only to ascertain the truth upon the subject to 
govern my ov/n action by, but it is my duty to lend my 
humble aid to my fellow-citizens in ascertaining the trutli 
also, that they may govern their conduct by it. And this 
is the more so, inasmuch as it is so persistently iterated 
and reiterated that the proposition is true, by '• the power 
behind the throne greater than the throne," that now un- 
fortunately controls the public affairs of this people. They, 
forsooth, will hardly brook the thought that the truth of 
the proposition should be doubted, denied, or controverted. 
But all who love the truth for truth's sake, are willing to 
examine and re-examine propositions, particularly when 
they are cardinal ones as this one is, to see if they are true 
or not. Truth never fears fair, candid investigation. And 
although clamor and detraction may decry her out of coun- 
tenance for a time, yet eventually she will rise again, and 
shine the brighter for the ill-treatment flhe has received. 

" Truth crushed to earth will rise again, 

The eternal years of God are her.? : 
While error wounded writhes in pain, 

And dies among her worshippers." 

All that I ask of the reader is a careful, faithful, honest 
reading of the book; and a re-reading of it, if necessary 
to a full understanding and comprehension of the proofs 
adduced in it. If, after he shall have so read it, he still 
thinks the proposition true, let him do so. That is with 
him, and between him and his God and his country. We 
all have to answer for ourselves, and not for others. 

I have written the book, or rather my portion of it, un- 



PREFACE. 7 

der great disadvantages, growing out of pressure of busi- 
ness and other affairs, including a protracted sickness which 
I had whilst it was being written. In the writing and prep- 
aration of it for the press, my thoughts were bestowed upon 
the matter — upon the proofs adduced — and not upon the 
manner, except to try to state the proofs so that they could 
be understood b}^ all. Diction, style, and fine rounding of 
periods, I paid no attention to. My thoughts were other- 
wise engaged. So the critics need not trouble themselves 
as to those matters. Should the public demand a second 
edition, I may, in the preparation of that, devote some at- 
tention to style and diction. But the fact, the truth of my 
position, and the proofs adduced, I am ready for the critics 
to go to work at, if they really want to come to the knowl- 
edge of the truth. If they do not, and want only to throw 
dust in the eyes of the public to prevent the people from 
reading the book, or considering the proofs, they will be 
unworthy of consideration or regard by me, or of answer 
from me. 

All of which is respectfully submitted : and I now give 
the book to the public, for its examination and considera- 
tion. 

Jer. Smith. 

Winchester, Ind., Oct. 1st., 1863. 



INTRODUCTION 



Unfortunately for our country and people, slavery has 
been used as a subject of agitation and declamation, for a 
long series of years. 

Agitate! agitate!! agitate!!! was the exclamation pub- 
licly made to his followers, by Mr. John Q. Adams, many 
years ago. Alas ! they too faithfully followed his advice. 

Agitation is not a means of acquiring either truth or 
knowledge. Examination, investigation, comparison, in- 
duction, &c., are the means of ascertaining truth, and there- 
by storing the mind with knowledge. This is true in all 
departments of truth and knowledge, whether moral, men- 
tal, physical, scientific, or historical. Agitation is only a 
perturbation, a disturbance of the thoughts; it excites the 
passions and prevents reason, reflection, and comparison. 
The agitator infuriates a nation, and makes it cry, even of 
the Lord of Life, crucify him ! crucify him ! ! or pours 
millions of infatuated Europeans into Asia, as did Peter 
the hermit. 

Hence, nought else could be expected from the continued 
agitation of the subject of slavery, but the terrible calami- 
ties with which our beloved country is now overwhelmed. 

The great Jefferson, saw the danger at the beginning. 
" This momentuous question," said he in his letter of April 
22d, 1820, to John Holmes, of Missouri, " like a fire bell in 
the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I consider- 
ed it at once as the knell of the Union. '^ -'"^ -^ ^^ * 
I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless , 
sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 177G, to acquire 
self-government and happiness, to their country, is to be 
thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their 
sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live 
not to weep over it."^ 

(1) Jefferson's Works, vol. vii, pp. 159-60. 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

The National Intelligencer, then the leading political pa- 
per of the Union, in its issue of August 16th, 1825, said: 

"We will inform the editor of the Boston Sentinel that we are neither the champions 
nor the apologists of slavery ; and that we lament its existence v/ith as much sincerity as 
any of those humane gentlemen who daily fulminate their anathemas against it, and the 
only effect of whose writings, if they have any, on the foul blot which they rail at, is to- 
excite insurrection and consequent hlood-shed." 

Even Mr. Horace Greelj, who for twent}^ years last past, 
has been so great an agitator of the subject of slavery, 
some twenty-seven or twenty-eight years ago, in his Neiv 
Yorkev, the first paper, I believe, that he ever edited and 
published, said : 

"To a philosophical observer, the existance of domestic servitude in one portion of 
the Union, while it is forbidden and condemned in another, would seem, indeed, to afford 
110 plausible pretext for variance or alienation. The Union was formed with a perfect 
knowledge on the one hand that slavery existed at the South, and on the other that it was 
utterly disapproved and discountenanced at the North. But the framers of the Constitution 
&aw no reason for distrust and dissension in this circumstance. Wisely avoiding all dis- 
cussion of a subject so delicate and exciting, they proceeded to the formation of a more 
perfect Union, which, leaving each section the possession of its undoubted right of regula- 
ting its own internal Government and enjoying its own speculative opinions, provided only 
for the common benefit and mutual well being of the whole. And why should not this 
arrangement.be satisfactory and perfect? Why should not even the existing evils of one 
section be left to the correction of its own wisdom and virtue, when pointed out by the fin- 
ger of experience ? " 

Had a prophet of God then met Mr. Greely and told 
him that he would do the evil to the government and people 
of the United States that he has since done and is still do- 
ing, would Mr. Greely have replied to him as Hazael did to 
Elisha, " But what ! is thy servant a dog that he should do 
this great thing? "' 

Mr. Jefferson, the National Intelligencer^ and Mr. Greely^ 
looked on it, and spoke of it, in its political aspect, as a 
political question. That is what it is. Slavery is an insti- 
tution of civil society, or civil government. Its adoption 
or rejection in any State or nation, is a political question ; 
a question to be decided by the kingdoms ©f this world, 
which all civil governments are, as contra-distinguished 
from the kingdom or government of our Lord and Savior 
Jesus Christ. 

Hence its consideration, as an institution to be adopted 
or rejected originally where it does not exist, or to be con- 
tinued or abolished where it does exist, is purely and truly, 
a political question, to be determined by the laws of politi- 
cal economy. 

In our form of civil government in the United States, it 

(1) 2 Kings, viif, 11>13. 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

belongs exclusively to each State to determine, for herself, 
whether or not she will have the institution. The right to 
interfere with her in her choice to adopt or reject the insti- 
tution, or to inter-meddle with it, or with her in her manage- 
ment and enjoyment of it if she adopts or has it, is not 
granted by her in the Constitution of the United States,, 
to the Federal Government, nor to the people of other 
States, but is expressly reserved, by her, in that instru- 
ment, to herself and her people.^ 

Viewed in that, its true aspect, there have been and are 
differences of opinion among the States and people of this 
Union. Some States and their people choose to have the 
institution; some because according to their views of politi- 
cal economy, as to their soil, climate, production, and social 
and domestic habits, think it proper for them; and some 
because the institution existed among them when they be- 
came independent States, and when the present generation 
was born and came into existence, and they can see no^ 
proper and safe mode, consistent with humanity, of getting 
rid of it. On the other hand, some States and their people,, 
now constituting a majority of the States and people of the 
Union, choose not to have the institution. Some of the 
States that were originally slave States, have by systems of 
emancipation devised and carried out by themselves, each; 
within herself, rid themselves of the" institution. They dis- 
approve of it politically as a domestic institution, and hence 
have decided and still decide not to have it. 

My own views, I believe, concur with those of the mass- 
of the people of the free States. I am satisfied that they 
do with the mass of the people of ISTorthAvestern States, 
where I reside. I think it proper, in the out-set, to prevent 
misapprehension and misrepresentation, to state my views 
as to the institution. 

I am opposed to the institution, and prefer to live in a 
community where it does not exist, for various reasons,, 
some of which are: 1st. I prefer not to live in a commu- 
nity where negroes are, either slave or free. God, by his 
fiat, has placed a broad and marked line of distinction be- 
tween that race and ours, and I prefer, in my political and 
social relations, to regard that distinction, and not to mingle 

(I) Art. X, Amendments to the ConstitutioQi 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

with them in political and social relations, either of equality, 
or of servility on their part, and mastery on mine; and 
much more, of servility on my part and mastery on theirs. 
2d. My political principles being democratic, I prefer to live 
in a community where all can have equal political privileges ; 
and as negroes can not enjoy those privileges among the 
American people, either as slaves or free, I separated my- 
♦ self from them thirty six years ago, as Abram did from Lot, 
by coming from a slave State to wooden, wet, cold Indiana, 
and want myself and my posterity to remain separate and 
apart from them for all time to come. 8d. As a question 
of political economy, I am of opinion that the institution of 
slavery is injurious both to the country and people where 
it exists. 

For these reasons, I am opposed both to the institution 
of slavery, and to living in contact with the negro race. 
And in coming to this conclusion, it is not necessary for me 
'to settle the captious question sprung by abolitionists, 
whether it is because 1 am better or w^orse than the negroes, 
that I decline to stand in political and social contact with 
them. God has placed a broad and palpable line of de- 
markation between the races; and that is enough for me to 
know or answer, in determining whether as a political ques- 
tion, it is proper to keep the races separated, or to com- 
mingle them, without determining the question whether the 
races are equal, or the one is superior to the other. I have 
however, my views, and am well established in them, as to 
the question of equality of the two races, and of the infe- 
riority or superiority of one race to the other. 

The two races are here,*and were here when this govern- 
ment was formed. It was formed by the white race, and 
not by the negroes. They did not participate in, nor have 
any hand whatever, in forming the Constitution and the 
Union. The Constitution Avas formed by the white race, to 
secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their 
POSTERITY,^ and not to secure those blessings to the negroes.' 
The status of the negroes was left as it was, subject to the 
action of each State within herself and for hferseU. And, 

(1) Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. They had a pftrfect legal and 
moral right to confine the objects of the Constitution to those stated. They were as mnch 
legally and morally bound to undertake, by the Constitution, to secure the blessings of 
liberty to the down-trodden of Europe and Asia, as they were to secure them to the servile 
race in the several States And even abolitionists do not contend that the object of the Con- 
stitution was to secure liberty to the subjects of despotical or monarchical governtuents. 



INTRODUCTION. 13: 

as Mr. Greely pertinently asked in the extract above given, 
Why should net this arrangement he satisfactory and perfect ? 
It Avas satisfactory to all who were willing to obey the Con- 
stitution in its letter and spirit, and while so obeyed, the 
system was perfect. Its failure has been brought about by 
a failure to live up to the rule, and not because the system 
was imperfect. The system of Christianity is a perfect sys- 
tem to unite all the human family in harmony and brotherly 
kindness. It has hitherto failed to do so, not because of 
the imperfection of the S3^stem, but because its requirements 
are not lived up to. So of the federal system aevised by 
the Constitution; its failure is not because of its imperfec- 
tion, but because its letter and spirit have not been lived up 
to — because the people have barkened to, and acted upon 
the false theory of an "irrepressible conflict." 

Mr. Jefferson, with the political sagacity that he pos- 
sessed so thoroughly, gave the true reason why the arrange- 
ment made by the founders of the government, was not 
satisfactory, lie said that the slavery agitation was a mere 
party trick. That " the leaders of federalism, defeated in 
the schemes of obtaining power by rallying partisans to the 
principles of raonarcbisra, a principal of personal not of 
local division, have changed their tack, and thrown out an- 
other barrel to the whale. They are taking advantage of 
the virtuous feelings of the people to effect a division of par- 
ties by a geographical line; they expect that this will insure 
them, on local principles, the majority they could never ob- 
tain on principles of federalism;" but he thought that they 
would fail in the effort.' He was right in that; for they 
failed as long as they agitated the question on mere politi- 
cal grounds. The rights and duties of the people of the 
several States on that subject, were too clearly laid down in 
the Constitution, and the patriotic hearts of the people too 
firmly fixed in the determination to observe and respect all 
its rights and guaranties, to be drawn off by this federal 
trick, so long as the effort was made to operate upon them 
merely on political grounds. 

This made it necessary for the " leaders of federalism " 
to devise another and more deeply laid " party trick." As 
religious feeling is the strongest sentiment of the human' 

(1) Jefferson'B Works, voK vii, p. 180, letter to Mr. Pinckney, of Sept. 30th, 1820.. 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

heart, their trick was to attack the institution of slavery on 
moral grounds, declare it a sin, and get up a religious 
phrenzy and furor against it, and induce political action 
upon a " higher law " than the Constitution, with a total 
disregard of its injunctions as to the rights and duties of 
the several States and the people thereof. This they did 
after Mr. Jefferson had gone the way of all the earth. And 
after years of incessant " agitation," they have succeeded 
in " obtaining power," but at the fearful cost of a dissolu- 
tion of the Union, and of a gigantic civil war ! 

In their denunciation of slavery as a sin, they had peculiar 
advantages in misleading the public mind, and working it up 
to religious phrenzy. They operated in the free States, and 
in them alone. In those States, the politicians and politi- 
cal press opposed to abolitionism, confined their discussion of 
the question, to constitutional and political duty and obliga- 
tion, and did not touch the moral phaze of the question, be- 
couse that was a question of tlieology, and hence not legiti- 
mately within the pale of political discussion. For a cardi- 
nal maxim of our theory and form of government, is, that 
church and State should be kept distinct and separate. 
Whether slavery was sinful or not, they did not inquire into 
nor discuss, because we, in the free States, did not have the 
institution, and were all agreed not to have it; and, whether 
sinful or not, we had to discharge our constitutional duties 
and obligations to the States and people that had the insti- 
tution'. This and this only, was urged by the political press 
and orators opposed to abolitionism. 

The clergy of the free States who were not abolitionized, 
did not enter into the discussion of the question in their 
pulpits, for the very good and sufhcient reason, that slavery 
was a political institution, and questions relating to it were 
political questions, and hence improper themes for the pul- 
pit. The same reason operated upon the religious press 
not abolitionized, and kept it from the discussion of the 
question. 

Those not politicians in the free States, being opposed to 
slavery as a political institution of their civil society or 
government, did not care to examine the question Avhether 
the institution was sinful or not, and felt wholly indifferent 
to it, as they and their States did not have the institution. 
While those that had examined the question and ascertained 



INTRODUCTION. 15 

that the institution was not sinful, were deterred from com- 
batting; the abolition rant upon the subject, lest they should 
be placed in the fiilse position before the community of be- 
ing advocates of the institution, when they really were op- 
posed to it as an institution of civil society, on political 
grounds. I was of this class for some years. Some ten 
years ago, I investigated the subject for myself, and became 
satisfied that slavery v.as not sinful, and that the abolition 
denunciation of it as a sin, was all false clamor. But I was, 
and had been for thirty years, opposed to the institution, 
and still continue to be, and expect to remain so. Had I 
combatted the abolition dogma that slavery is sinful, the 
whole brood would have poured their denunciations upon 
my devoted head, that I was the advocate of slaver^^ — a pro- 
slavery man — a slave-holder in sentiment, &c. A principal 
means of operation used by abolitionists, is, and has been 
for years, to overwhelm with misrepresentation, vitupera- 
tion, and slang, all who attempted any opposition to their 
wikl vagaries. Hence I, in common with thousands of 
others, who desire " to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all 
godliness and honesty,"^ refrained from combatting the abo- 
lition dogma that slavery is sinful. But when I saw the 
fearfid calamities that were being brought upon our other- 
wise happy country and people, by the uncontradicted as- 
sertion and re-assertion of the dogma, I felt that duty to 
myself and my children, required that I should no longer 
refrain. Friends whose opinions were entitled to my most 
profound respect, advised me still to desist. The most, 
prominent among our Christian brotherhood, wrote to me — ■ 
" Still in the present state of affairs, I would let the matter 
rest, at least, for the present. They will put you in a false 
issue continally, and make you the advocate of slavtry.^^ 
Yet I have yielded to what I felt it to be my duty to do, 
and have entered the arena to cast in my humble mite to 
disabuse the public mind upon the subject, and roll back the 
torrent of misrepresentation, declamation, and sophistry, 
that abolitionists have been surfeiting the public mind with, 
for years. And for this I have already received a consider- 
able amount of vituperation and slander, and shall doubtless 
receive much more hereafter. But having put my hand to 

(1) 1 Tim., ii, 2. 



16 INTRODUCTION. 

the plow, I shall fearlessly advocate THE TRUTH, and 
leave the event with God. As the abolition dogma that 
slavery is sinful, is the cardinal tenet of their theory, and 
the main lever with which they have wrought the present 
great mischief to our country and people, it is absolutely 
necessary that its fallacy be shown, to restore to our un- 
happy and distracted country, the blessings of which she 
has been bereft by the belief of the dogma. This restora- 
tion I earnestly desire to see before I am called hence; for 
I can not bear the thought that the political blessings I in- 
herited from my ancestors, I can not transmit to my poster- 
ity, because they perished in my keeping. And this is the 
reason why I have engaged in this work. 

The reason why the people of the slave States did not 
combat this abolition dogma, was correctly stated by a pres- 
byterian gentleman, a citizen of Kentucky, in a conversa- 
tion I had with him last fall. He said: " That is a question 
I will not debate Avith them, [the abolitionists]; for if it is 
a sin it is my sin, and not theirs, and they are not account- 
able for it." This, I have no doubt, is the sentiment of the 
entire southern people, and is the reason why they did not 
enter into the discussion of the question with the abolition- 
ists. 

Hence, the abolitionists had a clear field. The politicians 
did not combat their dogma that slavery is a sin, because 
that was a theological question; the clergy of the free 
States not abolitionized, did not combat it, because slavery 
was a political institution, and not a proper subject for pul- 
pit discussion ; the citizens of the free States not politicians, 
did not discuss it, because they were indifferent to the ques- 
tion, as they had not the institution ; and the citizens of the 
slave States did not discuss it with the abolitionists, because 
they were satisfied it was not a sin, but if it was a sin, it 
was not the sin of the abolitionists, and hence their inter- 
meddling with it was sheer impertinence. 

In addition to these advantages that the abolitionists had 
to mislead the public mind, the religious periodicals that 
first took the ground that slavery was sinful, closed their 
columns against those who wished to meet and refute their 
dogma. ^ 

(1> Pulpit Politics, pp» T5 and 78, and proofs there cited. 



INTRODUCTION. 17 

How they proceeded in the various churches and ecclesi- 
astical bodies to effect their objects, is well and fully shown 
by Professor Christie in his Pulpit Politics, a work that 
all should read who desire to ascertain the facts bearing on 
the subject. I shall oniit giving here, even a summary of 
their action. They severed the churches one after another 
with their dogma that slavery is a sin. All sound-thinking 
men saw that these were but steps foreshadowing and lead- 
ing to the final severance of the Union. 

I shall close this branch of the subject by copying the 
views of the great statesman and patriot, Henry Clay, as 
reported by Dr. Hill, editor of The Freshyferian Herald^ of 
Louisville, Ky. He says : 

"Concprning the greatest source of danger to the country. A fewM'eeks prior to the 
death of Hon. Ilonry Clay, when he passed through our city on his way to Washington, at 
the request of a Methodist minister from oiie of the Northern States, who had never seen 
the great statesman, we called with him to see him. He was quite feeble, and spoke of his 
death as a probable event within a few months. He said that nothing but a deep and abid- 
ing conviction that the Union of the States was in imnunent peril, could have induced him, 
in his state of health, to leave the quiet of his own home, and go back to the Senate, the 
seat of so many of his struggles and great achievements. The opinion was expressed by 
one or both of us, that the danger of disunion was greatly overestimated ; that if it ever 
came to the test, it would be found that there were very few who would be mad enough to rush 
into disunion, either North or South. He shook his head ominously, and replied: ' Gentlemen, 
if I have studied anything, it is tlic ucnius and s])iritofthe American people, both in the North 
and in the South: find I tell ycu, tiinr is d;ui,mT. There is a spirit rising up in both sections of 
this republic, which, if not spi"( dily ijmll( il, will bring about a severance of the Uuion of these 
States, not into two, but into half a dozen little petty repuVdics, or despotisms, as the case 
may be.' It was replied that on several lormer occasions, the North and the South had 
been arrayed against each other in bitter hostility, but that the hostility had died away, 
and the parties restored to nioif tlian their former ftriendly relations. 'Ah!' said he, 
^ tJiat wan before the r/Kc of modiin Ahnlitionixm. Faiiaticism. can not be con- 
trolled, and especially rcligioux jtiiKiticiKni. TJie churches of the country then 
stood together, and. in t?uir great )iati(>)i<tl assemblies they drew the bond of Union 
and of brotherhood together. Koto irwst of them ha'oe been rent assunder, and they are 
acting as dividers, rather than to bind the country.^ Said he : ' Gentlemen^ you are 
both ministers of the gospel, and I tell you that this sundering of the religious ties 
uhich hare hitherto bound our people together, Iconsider the greatest source of dan- 
ger to the country. If our religious men can not live together in peace, what can 
he expected of us politicians, very few of whom p>rofess to be goverried by the great 
principles of loiie. If all the churches divide on the subject of slavery, there will be 
nothing left to bind the people together but trade and commerce. That ' said he, ' is a 
very jiowerful bond, I admit ; but when the people of these States become thoroughly 
alienated from eaah other, and get their passions aroused, they are not apt to stop to 
consider what is to their interest. It is against the interest of both parties in every contest, 
to go to war, but nations constantly do it, notwithstanding the fact. It is against the inter- 
tcrest of men to fight duels, but they often do it, when they know that ruin, both to them- 
selves and families, stares them full in the face. S<),' said he, 'men will fight, if they con- 
sider their rights trampled upon, even if you show them that ruin to themselves and fami- 
lies will be the probable result. Besides, in times of high i)arty excitement, the violent 
men on both sides get the control of matters, and moderate men are thrown into the back- 
ground, and their councils go unheeded.' Finding that the venerable statesman had ex- 
hausted his strength in talking, we arosq,to bid him adieu, as we thought, for the last time 
on earth. He shook the hands of both of us, and said, ' If you preachers will only keep 
the churches from running into excesses atid fanaticism, I think the politicians 
can control the masses. But,'' added he, ^ yours is the hardest task, a>id if you do 
not perform it, we v:ill not be able to do our part. That I consider the greatest 
source of danger to our country. ' " 

The preachers did not perform their task of keeping the 
churches from running into excesses and fanaticism, and 



18 INTRODUCTION. 

hence the politicians were not able to do their part ; and 
demagogues devoid of statesmanship, taking advantage of 
the excitement of the times, violent men on both sides got 
control of matters, and moderate men possessed of states- 
manship and patriotism, were thrown into the back-ground, 
and their counsels went unheeded. And the result is a dis- 
solution of the Union and civil war, as foreseen by Mr. 
Clay. 

The various religious denominations that were severed, 
liad in their polity, ecclesiastical bodies called General As- 
semblies, Sj'nods, General Conferences, &c., which had 
power to prescribe rules, ordinances, tenets, and tests of 
membership, for their sev^eral denominations, and through 
them the abolitionists operated by procuring the adoption 
of rules, ordinances, tenets, and tests of membership upon 
the subject of slavery. But the body called Disciples of 
Christ, or Christians, or Campellites, have no such authori- 
tative ecclesiastical body. They acknowledge no creed, or 
rule of faith and practice, or test of membership, but the 
New Testament. They do not acknowledge the authority 
of any ecclesiastical body or court of judicature, to adjudi- 
cate for, speak for, or bind the whole body of theii- brother- 
hood. They acknowledge only the Lord Jesus Christ as 
their King and Law-giver, and the Apostles as his only 
Judges, who were set by Him on twelve thrones to judge or 
give laws to the church, the body of Christ; and that their 
judgments and laws are written out in the New Testament, 
to govern the church or body of Christ, for all time to come ; 
and that they did their work fully and completely, and have 
no successors to add to or subtract from their adjudications 
there written out and left for us. And that each congrega- 
tion of christians, through their presbytery, or eldership of 
bishops and deacons, have simply to administer or apply 
the adjudications and laws, so written out and left in the 
New Testament, to their respective congregations and the 
members thereof. Or in other words, that the Head of their 
body is the Lord himself, and., their General Assembly, 
Synod or Conference, is the College of Apostles, which fully 
did its work and left recorded in the New Testament, all ad- 
judications and laws necessary and proper for the body of 
Christ. Hence the few abolitionists among them could not 
work schism and division amono; them in the manner that 



INTRODUCTION. ' 19 

abolitionists did among other bodies of professed christians. 
But tlie abolitionists among them were seized and pos- 
sessed of the same restless and contentious spirit (peculiar 
to all abolitionists) that had wrou,ci;ht schism and division 
among the other denominations. But as there was no au- 
thoritative ecclesiastical body to resort to now on earth, tlie 
Apostles having long since left it, they resorted to the press 
to effect their work. When they found that they could not 
divert tlie standard periodicals of the brotherhood, from 
their proper vocation of being christian periodicals, and 
convert them into organs of abolition agitation, they got 
-up periodicals to advocate and disseminate their views. 
They thus started a Weekly paper in Cincinnati, called 
Tite Christian Luminarij^ notwithstanding The AMEiacA]^ 
Christian Review vy-as then published in that city, and ably 
conducted by Elder Benjamin Franklin, to the satisfaction 
of the entire brotherhood except the few infected with abo- 
litionism. The Luminary was edited by brother John 
Boggs, and efforts were made to scatter it broadcast among 
the brotherhood of the North-West. Specimen papers were 
sent to me with a request that I should aid in its circulation 
and dessemination. I was anxious that our brotherhood 
should not be divided and dissolved as the other religious 
denominations had been, and that our dissolving civil gov- 
ernment, should be saved if possible. Hence I wrote to 
the editor, vvhich led to a correspondence, part of which 
was published in his paper, but all of which I think proper 
to insert here ; it will speak for itself. 

Winchester, Ind., Jan. 26th, 1861. 

Bro, Jolut Boggs, editor Christian Lumijiary: 

Dear Sir: — [ have received your paper of the 10th 
and 17th instant, with a special notice enclosed, requesting 
me to become a subscriber, and ask my neighbors to do 
likev/ise. 

I can not become a subscriber for two reasons. 1st. I 
am tnking as many of our religious periodicals, as I think 
it proper to expend money for. This is sufficient, and I 
might stop here ; but I think it proper to give the other 
reason. 2d. A principal, if not the principal subject treat- 
ed of by the paper, is the institution of slavery ; an insti- 



20 INTRODUCTION. 

tution of civil Rociefy existing in a portion of the States of 
this Uniofi. Now though that institution existed in a worse 
form in all the society that the Lord and the Apostles labor- 
ed in during their ministry, than it does in any State of this 
Union, yet they never discussed the rightfulness or propri- 
ety of it,, nor denounced it as sinful, buc gave explicit direc- 
tions to both masters and slaves, as to their conduct towards 
each other, without directing or even reccommending a 
scA'crance of the relation existing between them. There- 
fore the discussion of the rightfulness or propriety of that 
institution, or the denunciation of it as sinful, is no part 
of Christianity, nor of the work of a christian. Hence the 
Luminary^ s course is outside of Christianity, and in the politi- 
cal field. Professing to be christian when it is political, it 
IS, for that reason, anti-christian. Making schisms and 
divisions among christians about matters not pertaining to 
Christianity, it is heretical — making a sect — and is therefore 
denounced by the divine law. In violation of the divine 
law, it is, under a pretence of being free, '* using its liberty 
for a cloak of maliciousness " against the brethren in Christ 
who are slaveholders, as well as against fellow-citizen^ of 
the best civil government ever given by God to man, insteiid 
of using its liberty "as the servants of God; honoring all 
men; loving the brotherhood ; fearing God; honoring the 
king/' or the ci-vil authority and its institutions existing in 
our nation and States.^ The course of the Luminary^ as 
well as that of those brethren v;ho think and act with it on 
this subject, is sinful, and is doing the cause of Christ much 
harm. I can not therefore, take the paper, nor encourage 
others to do it ; and I should be much gratified if you, and 
those who act with you as to that subject, c<:^uld see the er- 
ror of your ways, and abandon them. Your opinions on 
that subject, no one would object to your having and enter- 
taining, so long as you kept them as private property, or 
mere political opinions as they are ; but when you teach 
and insist on them, 3'ou become heretical, schismatical, anti- 
christian. 

! that we all would come to the kuoiiMge of the Lord, 
that is, come to the knowledge that the Lord has imparted 
to our fallen race in the scriptures given by inspiration. 

(1) 1 Pet., ii, Ifl, 17. • 



INTRODUCTION. Zl 

The divine injunction to us is, to " grow in favor and the 
knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesns Christ."^ If we 
continue in, or keep, or observe his word, we shall know 
the truth, 2 that is, come to the knowledge of the Lord ; 
but if we set up our own vain philosophizings, and continue 
in, or keep them, we become " proud, knowing nothing," 
t^.c.^ xVffectionately your?, 

JER. SMITH. 



[From the Christian Luminary, of Feb. Tth, ISGl.] 

NO NEUTRAL GROUND. 



There \?> philosophy^ as well as divine wisdom, in the as- 
sertion of the Savior, recorded by Matthev/, " He that is 
not with me is against me; and he that garhereth not with 
me, scatereth." No christian man can occupy • neutral 
ground on an}^ of the great moral questions of the day. If 
we do not take a stand against sin, we will before we are 
aware, be apologizing for it, and then there is only one step 
left to make us its open advocates. Practically every pro- 
fessor of Christianity is either for or against every moral 
question. If v/e are careful a1)out our words, our injiuence 
will all the time be telling for weal or for woe, in the com- 
munity having cognizance of our lives. 

A short time ago we sent a specimen copy of the Lumi- 
nary to a prominent member of the Cliristian Church, liv- 
ing in Indiana — sl miin who j^oUticallg ink os strong Republi- 
'can ground. Appended was a note politel}?- requesting him 
to become a subscriber, and to use his influence to induce 
others to do likewise. 'J'o show the reader v/here some of 
our brethren, even in the non- slave-holding States, stand on 
the slavery question, tveji where they are identified with the 
Republican party, w(; make the following extract from a 
letter we have just received from him : 

" A principal, if not the principal subject treated of hy the paper, is the institution of 
slavery ; an institution of civil society, existing in a portion of the States of this Union. 
Now, though that institution existed in a worse form in all the society that the Lord and 

(1) 2 Pet., ill, IS. Ci) John, viii, 31, 32. (3) 1 Tim., vi, 4. 



22 ■ INTRODUCTION. 

the apostles labored in during their ministry, than it does in any State of this Union, yet 
they never discussed the rightful;iess or propriety of it, nor denounced it as sinful, but gave 
explicit directions to both masters and slaves, as to their conduct towards each other, with- 
out directing, or even reccommending a severance of the relation existing between them. 
Therefore the discussion of the rightfulness or propriety of that institution, or the denun- 
ciation of it as sinful, is no part of Christianity, or of the work of a Christian. Hence the 
Lumhiarifs course is outside of Christianity, and in the political field. Professing to be 
Christian when it is political, it is for that reason anti-christian. Making schisms and di- 
visons among Christians about matters not pertaining to Christianity, it is heretical— mak- 
ing a sect— and is therefore denounced by the divine law. In violation of the divine law, 
it Is under pretence of being free, " using its liberty for a cloak of maliciousness " against 
brethren in Christ who are slave-holders, as well as against fellow-citizens of the best civil 
government ever given by God to man, instead of using its liberty " as the servants of God ; 
honoring all men; loving the brotherhood ; fearing God ; honoring the king " or the civil 
authority and its institutions existing in our nation and States. (1 ) The course of the Lumi- 
nary, as well as that of those brethren who think and act with it on this subject, is sintul, 
and "is doing the cause of Christ much harm. I can not therefore take the paper, nor en- 
courage others to do so; and I should be much gratified if you, and those who act with you 
as to that subject, could see the error of your waya and abandon them." 

The foregoing is, the reader will observe, written in a 
kind spirit, and is only hard because the writer actually 
feels that he is doing God service in opposing the Luminary^ 
and all the brethren who are in any way laboring to divorce 
the church of Christ from the sin of slavery. He does not 
manifest any dislike to any of us as men or brethren, but 
looks upon us as engaged in a heretical work. He occupies 
about the same position to the anti-slavery movement i:*. the 
church, that Saul of Tarsus, did to the church, when ho " ver- 
ily thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the 
name of Jesus of Nazareth." We have no doubt but the 
writer of the aforesaid letter is just as micere in his opposi- 
tion to the Luminary, as was Saul vdien he consented to the 
death of Stephen, and held the tunics of those who stoned 
him. We award to him then, the credit of sincerity. There 
is just one question to settle on the whole question of slav- 
ery, morally considered, and that is, tvhether it is a sin in 
the sight of God. That question once satisfactorily settledi 
there must be an end of the controvesy so far as ChriHians 
are concerned. If slave-holding is a violation of the great 
law of love, under which all the disciples of Jesus are 
brought, then those wlio are laboring to abolish it, as fiir at 
least, as the church is concerned, are not " heretical,^' as 
our correspondent is pleased to style us. Purity is a law 
of heaven, and also a law of the church. " First j??ir(?, then, 
peaceable," is the apostolic order. If, therefore, there is any 
impurity about the institution of slavery, it is the duty of all 
Christians to labor for its removal from the church. With the 



[IJ 1 Pet., ii. 3G, 17. 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 23 

stereotyped sophism that, " Christ and his apostles never dis- 
eussed the rightfulness of slavery," we shall not at present 
stop to hold any argument. It has been exploded time and 
again, and could be used with just as much propriety in justi- 
fication of gambling, horse-racing, d^xncing, poll/ gamy, and 
many other immoralities as slavery. The question covering 
the whole ground is : " Is American slavery sinful ? " We 
take the affiirmative, and our correspondent and all others 
who occupy his ground, must, to be consistent, take the neg- 
ative. We are not going to elaborate our affirmation at this 
time, but stand pledged to do so whenever the writer of the 
foregoing extract, .or any other rcspcctahh m^mhQY of the 
Christian church, is ready to take the other side. Suffice it 
to say at this writing, that the very act of chattelizing a 
man is a sin, and everj^ thing connected with slaverv, from 
the beginning to the end of it is evil, onl}^ evil, and that 
continually. American slavery can not exist without oppres- 
sion, cruelty, covetousness and the total violation of all the 
relations of husband and wife, parent and child, brother and 
sister, and the systematic exclusion of all education from 
the slave. Is it " heretical " then, to oppose such an in- 
s-titution ? Wo hold that Christians are bound to oppose it. 

It is seen by the foregoing, that Mr. Boggs stated what 
is the truth; that the \)YO]io?^\i\on Slavery is sivful, \^ the 
gist of abolitionism. Hence if it is nntrue, abolitionism 
lalls. 



[From the Luminary, of March, *li\i, 1861.] 

PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 



Bro. John Boggs. — Editor Christian Luminary : I see 
from your paper of the 7th instant, which you were so 
kind as to send me, that you published a part of my letter 
of the 26th ult., declining to subscribe for your paper, and 
giving two reasons why I declined. 

As I understand your remarks upon it, you are willing 
" to elaborate " your position on the slavery question, and 



24 INTRODUCTION. 

'^ stand pledged to do so, whenever " I " or any other rz- 
spectahle member of the Christian church, is ready to take 
the other side.'*' 

I am much engaged in other business, and am not certain 
that I can find time to investigate the subject properly ; 
yet, believing as I do, and as I stated in my former letter 
to you, that the course of the Litminary, as well as that of 
those brethren who think and act with it in the slavery agi- 
tation, now pervading our whole community, both religious 
and political, " is sinful, and is doing the cause of Christ 
much harm," I do not feel myself at liberty to decline the 
investigation wi'th you, but feel constrained to contribute 
my humble mite, to enable us all to -'grow in grace, and in the 
knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,"' and to 
come to the knowledge of the truth, as it is in Jesus," so 
" that we all speak the same things, and that there be no 
divisions amono; us; but that we be perfectly joined together 
in the same mind, and in the same judgment,"^ and " live in 
peace."'* Hence, I now propose to investigate the subject 
with you in the columns of the Luminary^ not for a mere 
polemic victory on either side, but that we may aH ascertain 
where the truth is, and having ascertained it, to do as all 
lovers of truth do, follow it, let it lead where it may, not- 
withstanding our previous opinions, and our previous con- 
duct resulting from those opinions. 

You seem to think, that the question covering the whole 
ground, is, " Is American slavery sinful?" I -respectfully 
submit, that that is a principal question, rather than one 
"' covering the whole ground." I frankly admit that it is 
ilie principal one, in your theory, or view of the premises ; 
but to fully canvass and understand the law of the Lord, 
and our duty as Christians in the premises, I respectfully 
submit that there are three other questions proper to be 
considered. Hence I propose the following, as the ques- 
tions for consideration : 

I. Slavery is an institution of civil society, or civil gov- 
ernment. Jer. Smith affirms. 

II. Slavery is sinful. J. Boggs affirms ; Jer. Smith 
denies. 

III. Christian preachers should preach against slavery, 



(1) 2 Pet., iii. 18. (2) Eph., iv. 21. (3) 1 Cor. i. 10. (4) 2 Cor. xiii. 11. 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 25 

both orally and in Christian periodicals. J. Boggs affirms ; 
Jer. Smith denies. 

IV. When Christian preachers preach against slavery, 
either in the pulpit, or through the press, and insist that 
Christians should free themselves of it, and that those Christ- 
ians that refuse to do so, should be disowned or dis-fellow- 
shipped, they, that far are heretical, schismatical and anti- 
Christian. Jer. Smith affirms ; J. Boggs denies. 

The parties shall have equal space (say two columns to 
each number) in the Luminary^ and the numbers to follow 
consecutively, one after another. The propositions to be 
discussed in their order, as numbered. The first proposi- 
tion (if the parties differ upon it) to have three numbers on 
each side, if the parties desire so many; the second propo- 
sition to have six numbers on each side, if the parties de- 
sire so many; the third proposition to have four numbers 
on each side, if the parties desire so many ; and the fourth 
proposition to have five numbers on each side, if the parties 
desire so many. The party who has the affirmative, to open 
the discussion on the propositions respectively, and to have 
a short number, say half a column, extra, in reply to the 
last number on the other side, but to introduce no new argu- 
ment or authority in it. 

Either party to have the privilege of publishing the dis- 
cussion in book form after'it is closed, if the opposite party 
shall decline to participate in the publication of it. 

If this meets your approbation, you may publish this as 
introductory ; and, if you take the negative of the first 
proposition, I will proceed to open the discussion of it. If, 
however, you admit the first proposition, you can say so, 
and proceed to open the discussion of the second. 

My part of the discussion will necessarily be furnished 
irregularly ; but I will be as prompt as I can. If the dis- 
cussion goes on, I shall want two copies of the papers C(>n- 
taining it, sent to me regularly, as they are issued. 

Fraternally yours, Jeremiah Smith. 

Winchester, Incl, Feb. 9th, 1861. 

P. S. — You are in error, in supposing me " identified 
with the Republican party." 

3 



26 * INTRODUCTION. 

Bro. Jeremiah Smith, Esq., Winchester, Ind. 

Dear Sir : — Your favor of 9th inst. came duly to 
hand, and would have been answered sooner, had not a short 
absence from home, and other matters, prevented. I am 
truly gratified to find one man in our brotherhood, who is 
willing to defend his pro-slavery principles — principles en- 
tertained by a majority of our whole membership. I also 
rejoice that I am likely to have so respectable an opponent, 
as I understand you to be — never having had, I believe, the 
pleasure of meeting you personally. From the circum- 
stance of your being an old practitioner at the bar, and be- 
ing at this time, (if I am not mistaken) District Judge in 
the circuit in which you reside, I h*ve no reason to doubt 
your entire ability to discuss the subject in the most credit- 
able manner. 

I would suggest a few changes, and verbal alterations, in 
your propositions, which I hope you will accede to. If so, 
I shall be happy to engage with you in a friendly discussion 
of the slavery question. The first proposition is, as far as 
it goes, true, and it is so interwoven with the whole subject, 
that its discission, as a seperate proposition, seems to me 
entirely unnecessary. I suggest, therefore, that it be strick- 
en from your list of propositions. 

Your second, I accept, with simply one qualifying word. 
1 want to affirm, that '' American slavery is sinful." I sug- 
gest this amendment, simply to confine the discission within 
proper limits. The only slavery with which we have much 
to do in this country, is American slavery, and I am ready 
to affirm its sinfulness. 

Your third proposition, is virtually involved in your fourth, 
and may, therefore, be included in it. Your propositions 
will then be reduced from four to two. But before accept- 
ing your last proposition, I wish to offer an amendment. It 
is to strike out the words, " and that those Christians that 
refuse to do so, should be disowned, or dis-fellowshipped." 
The proposition would then read thus, " When Christian 
preachers preach against slavery, either in the pulpit, or 
through the press, and insist that Christians should free 
themselves of it, they, that far, are heretical, schismatica 
and anti Christian." 

On the first, I affirm, and you deny. On the second, you 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 27 

affirm, and I deny. I agree with you in the suggestion that 
" each party shall have equal space (say two columns to each 
number) in the Luminary, and the numbers to follow consecu- 
tively." As the propositions will be two instead of four, I 
suggest that the time be lengthened, so as to allow eight 
numbers each, on each proposition. I object to the "extra" 
half column to the affirmant, inasmuch as it is contrary to 
general usage. 

To your stipulations in reference to publishing the dis- 
cussion in book form, should it be thought necessary, I agree, 
with the single addition, that if published conjointly, the 
work shall be done wherever the best terms can be obtain- 
ed. Now, if you accept my amendments, I will open the 
discussion upon the proposition, that " American slavery is 
sinful," at my earliest convenience, after hearing from you. 
I am, with kindest regards, 

Fraternally yours, 

John Boggs. 

Hopewell Home, near Cin., 0., Feb. 29, 1861. 



[From the Luminary of March 14th, 1861.] 



LETTERS THIRD AND FOURTH. 



Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary. 

Dear Sir: — Your letter dated Feb. 29th, was re- 
ceived to-day, but after my note of to-day had gone off in 
the mail. I haste to reply, that one letter from you may 
answer both. 

I did not suppose that a discussion of the first proposi- 
tion would be necessary, but was willing to affirm it, if you 
denied it. As you do not deny it, but admit it, we set it 
down at the head of our propositions as admitted by both. 
I prefer to retain it as one of the series. 

I disapprove of the qualifying word you propose to in- 
sert in the second proposition. 

Slavery, as an institution, is, the relation of master and 
slave existing between two or more persons. ]S"ow, if this 



28 INTRODUCTION. 

relation is sinful, it is immaterial whetlier tlie parties bear- 
ing it to one another, are in America, Europe or Asia. 
A man and woman not lawfully married together, but one 
or both of whom are married, that live together as husband 
and wife, are living in adultry, and bear the relation of 
adulterer and adultress to each other. Were it proposed 
to discuss the proposition, Living in adultery is sinful, 
would it be pertinent or proper, to insist on having the 
proposition modiiied by placing the adjective Amcricayi, at 
the commencement of it? Would it aid the inqniry into 
the sinfulness of it to call it American, European or Asiatic, 
living in adultry? I apprehend not. If slavery is sinful, 
it is so without regard to the place where it exists; and in 
an inquiry as to its sinfulness, it is entirely unnecessary to 
take into the account the place of its location. 

For these reasons, I object to the modification of the sec- 
ond proposition that you propose. But if you must have 
the word American inserted into it, to enable you to con- 
template an institution that is either sinful or not sinful, in- 
dependant of its locality, why, I will not be strenuous 
about it, but let you insert the word. 

I can not agree to have the third proposition dropped. 
If one of the two has to be dropped, let the fourth be the 
one. The third affirms that the practice pursued by you, 
and by those brethren who think and act with you, is proper 
and right. I think it is not. It is for you to sustain your 
iiction, in the face of the reasons I shall urge against it. 
I am willing, and oiler, after that is done, to affirm the fourth 
proposition; but not to become the attacking party until 
you have made the effort to sustain your conduct over my 
objections. The third proposition must be discussed if the 
discussion goes on. I am willing to drop the fourth, but 
think that it is necessary to retain it to cover the whole 
ground that should be examined in the discussion. I am 
not willing, however, to modify it as you propose. If I 
affirm the proposition, I shall affu-m it in the language in 
which I framed it ; which, in my opinion, describes the evil 
as it exists among us. 

I agree that there may be eight numbers on each side of 
each proposition, if desired, whether there be two or three 
propositions discussed, and will not insist on the extra frac- 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGB. 29 

tional number, though the affirmative having to preponder- 
ate the scale, has the close in courts for that reason. 

If we publish conjointly, we will have equal voice in 
arranging details, as a matter of course, and can make no 
agreement beyond that now. 

When the preliminaries are arranged, and before the dis- 
cussion opens, I wish all the correspondence, commencing 
with my letter of January 26th, to be laid before the read- 
ers of the Luminary^ as introductory to the discussion. 
Fraternally yours, Jer. Smith. 

Winchester, hid., March 4th, 1861. 



Bro.. Jeremiah Smith, WincJiester, Ind. 

Bear Sir: — Your favor of the 4th inst., is before me, 
to which I hasten to respond. I am greatly surprised that 
^ you object to the modifications suggested in my last, as I 
certainly think they greatly simplify the propositions, while 
they cover the whole ground of controversy between us. In 
reference to the third of your series, which you indicate in 
your last, to be the " sine qua non'' of the discussion, is, to 
my mind, wholly included in your fourth, and in precisely 
the form in which it should come up. You affirm that 
preachers, and others who preach and write against slavery, 
are guilty of heresy, schism, faction, etc., and of course I 
deny the indictment. As a lawyer, you certainly are aware 
that the accused party is not under obligations to prove him- 
self 7iot guilty. But on the contrary, the '' omts 'prohandi,'^ 
rests entirely upon the accuser. It is not my business to 
prove myself innocent of murder, or theft, or arson, or 
drunkenness, or schism, or heresy, or anything else that I 
might be charged with. You affirm that my course is schis- 
matical, heretical, and anti-christian. I deny, and call for 
the proof. I affirm that it is anti-christian, and contrary to 
the morality of the Bible, for the disciples of Christ to hold 
their fellow human beings as propert}^ You deny. I am 
ready to adduce the testimony to establish my proposition. 
I think, therefore, that the two propositions made up of 



30 INTRODUCTION. 

your second and fourth, entirely cover the points in contro- 
versy. As to leaving jour first proposition as one to which 
we both assent, I object. It would be an unheard of thing 
to insert in a list of proposition for discussion, one that was 
assented to by both parties. Besides the proposition can be 
so worded that I would be willing to take its negative, and 
should be if retained at all. 

You object to the striking out amendment I proposed to 
your fourth proposition. But you should not, for the prop- 
osition without that sentence, expresses the sentiment 
taught by me, and by the regular contributors to the Lumi- 
nary. I have not yet defined the exact point of forbearance 
there should be exercised towards slaveholding church 
members. ^ 

The right and duty of preachers and editors, to enlighten 
the whole brotherhood in reference to the sinfulness of slave- 
holding, is the point of distinction between the Luminary 
and our other periodicals. We affirm, and they deny. I 
think our slaveholding brethren are many of them greatly 
in the dark on the subject, and that it is our duty to give 
them light. I trust you will see, Bro. Smith, that your ob- 
jections are not valid, and that your second and fourth 
propositions as amended by me, cover the true ground of 
controversy. 

I am very anxious to have a friendly, candid discussion 
with you, and in case you refuse the two propositions as 
above stated, I will present the four following, as a substi- 
tute for the four first proposed by you: 

1st. American slavery is wholly a civil institution, and 
one that no wise concerns the disciples of Christ. You 
affirm, I deny. 

2d. Slaveholding, as legalized and practiced in fifteen of 
the United States, is sinful in the sight of a just God, and in 
the light of the Bible. I affirm, you deny. 

4th. It is the duty of the church to bear its testimony 
against the sin of slaveholding, through the press, the pul- 
pit, and every other means legitimately, within its power. I 
affirm, you deny. 

3d. When Christian preachers preach against slavery, 
either in the pulpit, or through the press, and insist that 
Christians should free themselves of it, and that those who 
presistently refuse to do so, should be dis-fellowshipped. 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 31 

they are heretical, schismatical, and anti- christian. You 
aflfirm, I deny. 

If you must have four propositions instead of two, I 
think you can have no reasonable objection to the forego- 
ing, inasmuch as I have incorporated in the third the very 
expression I wished stricken out of your fourth, in the 
series presented by you. But, as I said before, I do not 
want to lose the the opportunity to discuss the whole sub- 
ject with a christian gentleman, so well qualified to do jus- 
tice to the cause, as you are reported to be. 
I remain with kindest regards, 

Fraternally yours, 

John Boggs. 
Hofewell Heme, near Cin,, 0., March 9th, 1861. 



[From the Luminary of March 21st, 1861.] 



LETTERS FIVE AND SIX. 



Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary : — I have 
not yet received an answer to my notes of the 4th instant. 
You were so kind as to send me the Luminary of the 7th, 
in which I found my letter of the 9th of February, and 
your reply, dated the 29th of February, (printed different 
in some respects however, from the letter received by me,) 
and to which my last of the 4th of March was a reply» I 
have just received the Luminary of the 14th instant, in 
which I find my note of the 4th, with a reply from you. If 
you sent a reply in manuscript, it has miscarried. 

Having stated in my last that when the preliminaries 
were arranged, and before the discussion opened, I wished 
the correspondence commencing with my letter of January 
26th, to be laid before the readers of the Luminary, as 
preliminary to the discussion, when I received the Luminary 
of the 7th instant, with my letter of the 9th and yours of 
the 29th of February, in it, without receiving any reply to 
mine of the 4th of March, I could but presume that you 
had accepted the terms, stated in that letter, and that the 



32 INTRODtJCTION. 

preliminaries were arranged, and you had commenced the 
publication of the correspondence, not wishing to give space 
in one paper for it all. I was disappointed, however, in not 
finding that the publication of the correspendence com- 
menced with my letter of the 26th of January, as requested. 
From yours of the 9th of March, it seems that the prelimi- 
naries are not yet arranged. This, therefore, is in reply to 
that. 

I respectfully submit and insist, that the first and second 
propositions have been agreed upon. The first you admitted, 
but deemed it unnecessary. The second I accepted in your 
own form, giving reasons however, why you should not in- 
sist upon the modification you proposed to it. That accept- 
ance stands, and I will not agree to modify it as you propose 
in your last. 

The first proposition should remain though we both afiirm 
it. It is not necessary that we should take opposite sides 
upon it, to make it one of our series. For, the institution 
of slavery and the duty of Christians in relation to it, being 
the subject we desire to investigate, in order that we may 
not " strive about the words to no profit, but to the subvert- 
ing of the hearers,"^ we should know what the institution 
of slavery is. Hence I afiirm that it is an institution of 
civil government. If you deny it, say so, and I will under- 
take to prove it. If you do not, it stands admitted. It 
must be an institution of civil government, or an institution 
of the Lord's kingdom; for there are but two ; the kingdoms 
of this world, and the kingdom of our Lord and Savior 
Jesus Christ. You have admitted it to be an institution of 
civil government, (kingdoms of this world); hence we agree 
as to what it is, but still it is an essential proposition to be 
kept in our series, and used in our further investigations, 
that we may contemplate and talk about the same thing. 
Many of the unfortunate dissensions that have existed in 
the human family have grown up because the persons who 
got into them, contemplated difi"erent things in their dissen- 
sions. Clear ideas are essential to correct reasoning and 
just judgment. Hence we keep the first proposition in the 
series as a truth admitted by both. I could not afiirm the 
proposition you framed in yours of the 9th of March, be- 

(1^ 2 Tim.ii. 14. 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 33 

cause the institution does concern both Christian masters 
and Christian slaves, and places them under the necessitjr 
of obeying that part of the law of Christ addressed to them 
as masters and slaves, and imposes that much more respon- 
sibility upon them. The third proposition I will accept as 
you have it framed in your last; but I respectfully and 
earnestly solicit you to amend it by substituting the word 
Christians for the words the church; and to strike out the 
words the sin of. These amendments, I think, are eminent- 
ly proper ; but if you will not agree to them, let the propo- 
sition stand as you have framed it. Three propositions are 
now agreed to; one admitted by both to be true, and the 
other two to be discussed. 

The fourth proposition, as framed by me, will be retained 
or stricken out as you may say. I think it should be re- 
tained for the reasons given in my last, but I will not insist 
upon it. 

You are the accuser, brother Bo2[C!;s. You are accusino- 
Christian brethren and sisters who are slaveholders, and 
Christians who are not, that differ with your views on that 
subject, and, by your action, you affirm that your conduct 
is right. I deny it; and as a Christian brother, as I have 
a right to do, I call upon you to justify your course by the 
law of the Lord. So far, 1 am no accuser. I am willing 
however, and offer, after you shall have answered my call 
upon you, not to accuse any one, but, to attack such con- 
duct as is described in my fourth proposition. If you are 
willinn; to investio-ate it with me, I will en2;ao;e in it with 
you ; if you are not, I shall not press it. 

We have now two propositions to discuss, and a third if 
you say so. I promise that the discussion on my part, 
shall be *' friendly and candid." As you are " very anxious 
to have" it, you will go on with it; and as you "do not 
want to lose the opportunity to discuss the whole subject," 
3'Ou will consent to have the fourth proposition retained. 

In the same paper in which you print this, print the 
propositions as agreed upon, including the fourth or not as 
you may elect; and in the following paper, the discussion 
will be opened — by me, if you deny the first proposition, 
and by you, if you do not. 

I enclose §2,00 to pay for two copies of the Luminary, 



34 INTRODUCTION. 

for eight months; if the discussion shall not be concluded 
within that time, I will send an additional amount. 

Fraternally yours. Jer. Smith. 

WmehesteVy hid.^ March 15th, 1861. 



Bro. Jeremiah Smith, Winchester^ Inch 

Dear Sir: — Your kind favor of 15th instant, came 
duly to hand this morning, to which I hasten to respond. 
My last reply was written just in time, to have it set up for 
last week's 4)aper, and I had not leisure to copy it at the 
time, but intended to send you a proof-slip in advance of 
the paper. It was, however, overlooked in the press of 
business bearing upon my mind. For the failure to do so, 
I feel that I owe you an apology. 

Through a mistake of the person making up the form, 
I see we do not understand each other in reference to the 
order in which the propositions are to stand. The proposi- 
tion you call the " third,'' is really the fourth of the series, 
as I have them numbered, although awkwardly placed im- 
mediately after the second. I will agree to the amendments 
you suggested in reference to it, prooided you agree to the 
order as numbered by me, and will accept the first, still fur- 
ther amended as hereinafter specified. We will then have 
four propositions, and the affirmatives and the negatives 
will be both alternate and equal. As amended then, tlie 
propositions will read and st(tnd as follows: 

I'irst — American slavery is wholly a civil institution, and 
one that in no wise concerns Christians residing in the non- 
slaveholding States. You affirm, 1 deny. 

Second — Slavery is sinful. I affirm, you deny. 

Third — When Oliristian preachers preach sgainst shivery, 
either in the pulpit or through the press, and insist that 
Christians should free themselves of it; and that those who 
persistently refuse to do so, should be dispelled ; they are 
heretical, schismatical, and anti-Christian. You affirm, I 
deny. 

Fourth — It is the duty of Christians to bear testimony 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOUGS. 35 

against slaveholding through the press, the pulpit, and every 
other lawful means within their reach. I affirm, you deny. 

The foregoing propositions, I think concede every thing 
that you can reasonably demand, and I trust will be entirely 
satisfactory to you. In the first proposition, both your 
objection and mine are removed. I do not want an unde- 
batable proposition in the series, and indeed can not consent 
to any such arrangement. As now worded, it leaves out 
the classes of church members to which you alluded in your 
last. To give you all the ground you possibly ask, I accept 
the second according to your original draft, notwithstand- 
ing you had partially agreed to accept my amendment. The 
third as it stands, you have accepted, and the fourth is now 
amended as you suggest in your last. If you accept the 
series as amended, we will then decide definitely in refer- 
ence to number of articles allowed on each proposition, and 
the greatest amount of space to be assigned to each article. 

As the present volume of the Luminary is so nearly ex- 
pired, I would prefer commencing the discussion with the 
first number of the next volume. 

I am with kindest regard. 

Fraternally yours, 

John Boggs. 

Ilopeimll Home, near Gin., 0., March 18th, 1861. 



[From the Luminary of April 6th, 1861.] 



LETTERS SEVEN AND EIGHT. 



Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary: — Yours 
of the 18th of March is just received. Slavery is the 
subject that we, as christians, wish to investigate. The 
natural and logical order of considering the subject is this: 
1st. What is it? 2d. Is it sinful? 3d. What should chris- 
tians do in relation to it? Then, after these matters are as- 
certained, an inquiry whether any particular action by a 
christian, or christians, is wrong, schismatical, or anti-chris- 
tian, is proper, if any such inquiry is desired; for in 



BQ INTRODUCTION. 

making any such inq'jiry, the three previous ones must be 
taken into the account, and shouhl be settled before this 
one is entered upon. To take them up, and consider them 
in any other order wouhl bo illogical. 

Wc should ascertain what shivery is, without coupling 
with that inquiry any predicate or affirmation of, or con- 
cerning it. Yet you insist that to a proposition defining it, 
shall be added an affirmance of a thing relating to it. We 
agree to the proposition defining it; and hence there is no 
need of debate upon it; and because of that, you will not 
agree to let it stand in our series of propositions. You say " I 
do not want an undebatable proposition in the series, and 
indeed, can not consent to any such arrangement." Would 
it not look strange for a mathematician to say that he could 
not consent to have either definition, postulate or axiom 
placed at the head of a series of geometrical propositions 
that were to be demonstrated? tlujt though he admitted the 
definition to be correct, was willing to grant the postulate, 
and that the axiom was self-evident; yet as they wore "un- 
debatable," they should not occupy a position in the series? 

The propositions were placed by me in their logical or- 
der^ There is no propriety in breaking that order, merely 
to have affirmatives and negatives to come alternately. 

In my letter of the 4th of March, speaking of my fourth 
proposition, which you number ildrd, I said that I was not 
willing to modify it as you proposed; that if I aliirmed the 
proposition, I should " affirm it in the languacje in which I 
framed it f' and, in my next and last letter, 1 said : " The 
fourth proposition, an framed hy one, will be retained or 
stricken out, as you may say ;" and yet you say in your 
last, " The third (my fourth) as it stands, (in your series 
just above,) you (I) have accepted T How you could have 
fallen into such an error, I am at a loss to conjecture. 

As you will not let the first proposition stand at the head 
of the series, either as a definition, postulate, or axiom, I 
now here strike it out. 

I now place the series as the propositions stand agreed 
to ; the words in brackets I desire left out; but you can re- 
tain them if you insist on doing so. 

I. [American] Slavery is sinful. J. Boggs affirms; J. 
Smith denies. 

II. It is the duty of christians to bear testimony against 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 37 

[the sin of] slavery through the press, the pulpit, and every 
other means legitimately -within their power. J. Boggs af- 
firms ; J. Smith denies. 

III. When christian preachers preach against slavery, 
either in the pulpit or through the press, and insist that 
christians should free themselves of it, and that those 
christians that refuse to do so, should be disowned, or dis- 
fellowshipped; they that far, are heretical, schismatical and 
anti-christian. J. Smith affirms; J. Boggs denies. 

The last above proposition you can strike out if you de- 
sire it done ; if not, it stands as above — not as you modified it. 

The first and second propositions above will stand as 
there, unless the words in brackets are left out with your 
consent; I desire them out. 

There is no need now of any more convassing and dis- 
cussing this branch of the preliminaries. If you intend to 
discuss, say so; say what and how much of the above you 
will discuss. The other preliminaries, I think, are agreed 
upon as follows: 

The parties to have equal space in the Luminari/, to-wit: 
two columns to each number. 

To be eight numbers on each side of each proposition, if 
either of the parties desires so many. The numbers to fol- 
low consecutively one after another. 

The propositions to be discussed in the order in v;hich 
they stand; the one having the affirmative of a proposition, 
to open the discussion of it; the other to reply; and so on 
alternately. 

Either party to have the privilege of publishing the dis- 
cussion in book form, after it is closed, if the opposite party 
shall decline to participate in the publication of it. If the 
parties publish conjointly, they are to have equal voice in 
settling and arranging the details. 

I think that your reply to this ought to close the prelim- 
inary correspondence. If you w^ant to delay the opening 
of the discussion until the commencement of the next vol- 
ume of the Luminarf/, you may do so; but that is no rea- 
son wdiy the preliminary correspondence should be protrac- 
ted till then. 

Fraternally yours, 

Jeremiah Smith. 

Winchester, Ind., March 22d, 'iJl. 



38 INTRODUCTION. 

Bro. Jeremiah Smith, Winchester, Ind. 

Dear Sir: — Your favor of the 22d inst. is before me, and 
contents noted. I agree with you that ^'slavery is the sub- 
ject that we, as christians, wish to investigate." But I dif- 
fer with you in your opinion that your series of propositions 
is the most '* natural and logical" that can be framed. 

Your affirmation that "slavery is a civil institution," is 
true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth. There- 
fore, as you have it worded, I can neither affirm nor deny, 
without doing violence to what I conceive to be the true 
definition of slavery. But with my amendment, I can deny 
your affirmation, while you retain only what I suppose you 
intended by your first affirmation. I am pleased, however, 
to find that you are willing to dispense with the whole 
proposition, inasmuch as a full definition of slavery is en- 
joined upon me, by accepting the affirmative of your second 
proposition, which I am ready and anxious to do. Your 
allusion to the solution of mathematical problems I consider 
altogether foreign to the subject under consideration, and, 
hence, in no wise a parallel case. You say, "If you intend 
to discuss, say so." I answer, that I intend not to let the 
present opportunity to discuss the whole slavery question 
slip, if I can bring you to what I consider fair and honora- 
ble terms. But I am not anxious enough for a discussion, 
to give you any very decided advantage, in the arrangement 
of the propositions. If they must all be just in your language, 
and stand in your order, there will be no discussion. If 
your last two propositions are to be discussed, their order 
must be transposed. I am ready and willing to affirm that 
"slavery is a sin," whether in or out of America. But I 
am not willing to affirm a negative, or what amounts to the 
same thing, undertake to prove myself and others innocent 
of the charges you have so gravely made. I insist upon it, 
that your third proposition should be the second, and your 
second^ if discussed at all, should be the third. 

If you accept of the transpositions, we are then ready 
for the diecussion, for I agree to take the three propositions 
as worded by you, rather than have you decline the discus- 
sion. The propositions will then stand as follows : 

I. Slavery is sinful. I affirm, you deny. 

II. When christian preachers preach against slavery in 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 39 

the pulpit, or through the press, and insist that christians 
should free themselves of it, and that those christians who 
refuse to do so, should be disowned or disfellowshipped, 
they that far, are heretical, schismatical anti-christian. You 
affirm, I deny. 

III. It is the duty of christians to bear testimony 
against slavery through the press, the pulpit, and every 
other means legitimately within their power. I affirm, you 
deny. 

To all your other preliminaries, as detailed in your last, 
I agree. I confess I do not admire the wording of the sec- 
ond proposition. It is too long and too complicated, or," in 
other words, it is too laivyer-like; but I will take it as it is, 
provided that will obvate any further preliminary discus- 
sion. If you consent to the propositions, as hereinbefore 
stated, I will publish the propositions and other specifica- 
tions in consecutive order, and then the way will be clear 
for the discussion proper. 

Fraternally yours, 

John Boggs. 

Ropeioell Home, near Gin., 0., March 27th, '61. 



LETTER NINE. 



Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary. 

Dear Sir: — Yours of the 27th of March is just received. 

To affirm that it is the duty of christians to bear testi- 
mony against slavery through the press, the pulpit, &c., is not 
"to affirm a negative, or what amounts to the same thing;" 
and I am at a loss to conceive why you should say so. This 
whole correspondence, and particularly my last letter, dis- 
proves the charge that I have claimed or desired, that the 
propositions "must be all just in my language, and stand in 
my order." The propositions, as put down in your last, are 
not as worded by me; and yet you say that you agree to 
take them that way rather than have me decline the discus- 



40 INTRODUCTION. 

The first and second propositions, as set out in my last, 
are agreed upo7i, you having the right to retain the words 
in brackets, or to let them be left out, as I desire them to 
be. And if you do not want to discuss the third, after the 
other two are discussed^ you were directed in my last to say 
so, and it would be stricken out; if not, it was retained. 
So we had two propositions to discuss, and a third if you 
were willing to discuss it; but I have twice expressly said 
I would not press the discussion of it. It now so stands, 
and I now, a third time, say, that you can have the. third 
discussed after the other two are discussed, or not, just as 
you elect and say. I think it should be discussed, but will 
not press it. 

In looking over my letters of the 15th and 22d of March, 
and your replies to them, I begin to apprehend that we 
shall not have a discussion. I hope otherwise. 

The first and second propositions, as set out in my last, 
are agreed upon, and ready for discussion; and the other 
preliminaries are agreed upon; the third proposition will be 
retained where it is, or stricken out entirely, as you may 
say. Why not, then, proceed at once with the discussion':' 
If you are not willing to undertake' to justify, by the good 
word of the Lord, your course and action on the subject 
of slavery, in the pulpit and through the press, in the face 
of, and over the objections I shall urge against the proofs 
370U adduce, say so manfully, and do not try to avoid it by 
saying it is a negative, or by trying to get the investigation 
0^ an inquiry that logically arises after that investigation is 
had, thrust in before it. 

Fraternally yours, 

Jer. Smith. 

Winchester, Ind., x\pril 10th, 18G1. 

This letter, though sent immediately, was suppressed, and 
not published in the Luminary. I can not imagine any 
reason for its suppression, but that it too plainly exposed 
bis course, and got him up into too tight a place. He had 
either to undertake to justify his conduct in slavery agita- 
tion, (not discussion) or to manfully say he could not do it. 
Agitators can not stand a close logical investigation; and 
abolition agitators are no exception to the rule. They must 
have ample sea-room, and when about to be pinned down at 



COHRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 41 

any one point, they flee to some other. Had brother Boggs 
published this letter, he could not have practiced the 7mse 
he did upon the public and his readers by suppressing it, 
not answering it, and in his paper of the 16th of May, 
1861, publishing the following article to cover up his re- 
treat : 

" OUR DISCUSSION. 

As there seems to be considerable difficulty in adjusting 
the propositions submitted by Bro. Jeremiah Smith, Esq. 
for a discussion, we propose the following two as a substi- 
tute for the whole : 

1st. To hold human beings in involuntary servitude, as 
property, is a sin in the sight of God, and contrary to the 
teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Boggs affirms; Smith 
denies. 

2d. The agitation of the anti-slavery question in the 
church, either orally or- through the press — teaching the 
duty of christians to withdraw their fellowship from such 
as persistently continue to hold slaves, is schismatical and 
heretical, and consequently a sin in the sight of God, and 
contrary to the Holy Scriptures. Smith affirms ; Boggs de- 
nies. 

The whole ground is thus covered by two propositions. 
We have sought no advantage in the wording of them, but 
rather to express clearly the real sentiments held by us re- 
spectively. Bro. Smith thinks it is sinful to make the 
slavery question a test of fellowship in the church, or to 
agitate it in the pulpit, or through the press. We think 
slavery is a sin, and are willing to affirm it ; and we pre- 
sume Bro. Smith is willing to affirm his sentiments. If so, 
we can have a discussion rigJit away. If not, it is hardly 
worth while to prolong our preliminary correspondence. 
We are satisfied that slavery is contrary to the teaching of 
the Bible, and are ready to affirm it anywhere, and before 
any tribunal. We are also willing to defend the whole 
anti-slavery movement by our brethren, against the charge 
of schism and sinfulness, made by Bro. Smith and those 
whom he represents. If he is ready to deny what we af- 
firm, and affirm what we deny, the discussion will commence 
immediately." 



42 INTRODUCTION. 

On the reception of this I immediately wrote to the edi- 
tor. In the Luminary of May 30th, my letter appeared, 
with accompanyings, in matter and form, as follows: 

THE DISCUSSION. 

In the absence of the editor, the pro tern takes the liberty 
of publishing both of the following communications. They 
will, no doubt, be intelligible to those readers who have read 
the preliminary correspondence upon this subject. In the 
meantime, the absence of the editor for some weeks will be 
a sufficient apology for any apparent neglect of the subject. 

Bro. John Boggs, Editor Christian Luminary: — The 
Luminary of yesterday is just received, containing an ar- 
ticle headed " Our Discussion.^' That of last week was also 
received, in which nothing is said about our discussion, nor 
was my last letter td^ you, of the 10th of April, contained 
in it. 

There is not, and has not been, on my part, any ^'diffi- 
culty" in adjusting the propositions for discussion. I have 
stricken out the 1st proposition to gratify you; I have 
agreed that the 2d and 3d may be modified as you propose 
to modify them ; and I have agreed to withdravf the 4th, if 
you are not willing to let it occupy its logical position in 
the series. I use the numbers here, as they stood in the 
propositions as originally proposed by me. 

Were I now to accept the two proposittions you set out 
in the Luminary of yesterday, as there set out, I still could 
not rely that the discussion would go on ; for two proposi- 
tions have long since been agreed upon, and yet you do not 
proceed with the discussion, but say in your paper of yes- 
terday, that "there seems to be considerable difficulty in 
adjusting the propositions." 

I respectfully claim and insist, that my last letter, dated 
April 10, 1861, and this note, be inserted in the next num- 
ber of the Luminary^ and do hope that you will at once 
proceed to open the discussion. If you do not, and the 
discussion does not go on, cease to send the Luminary to 
me. 

Fraternally yours, 

Jeremiah Smith. 

Winchester, Ind,, May 17, '61. 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. BOGGS. 43 

Bro. Boggs: — I have for two years been a reader of the 
Luminary. I like it in the main. But I must take the 
liberty of protesting against your interminable discussion 
of the slavery question. I don't wish either to be under- 
stood as being opposed to free discussion, but I must be al- 
lowed to judge of what will be suitable mental food for my 
children. 

I see by the last number, that you are about to enter the 
list with a Bro. Smith, upon the subject again. You must 
suffer rae to say, that I can hardly stand it. I don't like to 
say, '^stop my paper." 

You don't know, perhaps, that my seven children, whom 
I love dearer than my own life, belong to the proscribed 
class. If, instead of discussing the question whether we 
should be made to work for you white folks without wages, 
and sold to the highest bidder by the pound, you change 
the form of it and discuss, "Is it sinful to fatten and bar- 
bacue those children?" it would not be quite so repulsive. 
Perhaps Bro. Smith would accept of it in this form. If he 
should not, and the discussion must go forward in the old 
way, please stop my paper. 

Yours very truly, 
^ Mana Pointer. 

P. S.— Should Bro. Smith consent to the question as 
above stated, could you not get Bro. Hartzell to undertake 
with him? Be is a much more experienced debater thau 
you. i M. P. 

ir$pedale, 0., April, 1861. 

This correspondence, and brother Boggs' conduct in re- 
lation to it, exhibit a fair specimen of abolition tactics; 
and I introduce it here as well to show them, as to lay what 
I said before the reader. After making a great show of 
willingness and anxiety to undertake to sustain his dogma 
that slavery is sinful, and to justify his conduct in agitating 
the slavery question in the pulpit and press, when brought 
to the point, ho backed square out, suppressed the letter 
that brought him to the point, and after a month's silence, 
to mislead his readers as to the true state of the corres- 
pondence, said, in his paper, that there was " considerable 
diflBculty in adjusting the propositions," when there had 
not been, as is shown by the correspondence; and finally, 



44 INTRODUCTION. 

when held to his position again bj my letter of the 17th of 
May, he got either a real or fictitious negro to protest against 
his "interminable discussion of the slavery question," to 
help him out of his predicament. Discussion is what he and 
Mana Pointer both object to; but agitation must go on. 
Discussion might make bare their folly and impiety; agita- 
tion, however, would poison and mislead, if not infuriate, 
the public mind. The one must be suppressed ; the other 
must be persisted in, in the pulpit, press, and everywhere, 
except where there is an opponent. And derision and oblo- 
quy must be invoked, by having Mana to talk of selling by 
the pound, and fattening and barbacuing his children! 
These are abolition tactics, and are practiced and indulged 
in by men who claim that they are christians, and are doing 
'' the work of the Lord,"^ in thus acting ! 

Thus ended the flourish of trumpets with which brother 
Boggs set out. He kept Mana Pointer on his list of sub- 
scribers, and struck me off, but did not return my §2 that I 
had sent him. His paper, I believe, went down soon after. 

Brother Elijah Goodwin, an amiable and excellent bro- 
ther, who was publishnig a monthly religious periodical at 
Indianapolis, commenced issuing it in weekly form on the 
1st of January, 1862. It soon began to show that the dis- 
semination of abolitionism was its mission, equally with, if 
not more than, the dissemination of Christianity. I speak 
thus becanse they are distinctly different things, and lie in 
different fields, departments and kingdoms. Aholitio7iism 
is political, and belongs to the kingdoms of this world; 
while diristianity is religious, and belongs to the kingdom 
of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

Believing, as heretofore stated, that duty required that I 
should not longer remain silent, as to the abolition assump- 
tion, that slavery is sinful, by which (it being uncontro- 
verted) abolitionists had been enabled to do so much harm 
to our country and people, both religiously and politically, 
and were still doing harm in that direction, with increased 
exertions and vigor, and being anxious that our brotherhood 
should not be rent and torn asunder, as almost all other re- 
ligious denominations had been by that abolition assump- 
tion, I resolved to combat abolitionism in brother Goodwin's 

(1) ICor.xvi, 10. 



INTRODUCTION. 45 

paper so far as it exhibited itself there, and that it should 
not go to the brethren who read that paper unanswered and 
unrebuked. 

Brother A. R. Benton, President of the Faculty of the 
Northwestern Christian University, at Indianapolis, wrote 
for brother Goodwin's paper. His eminent abilities, and 
deservedly high position, made his teaching upon that sub- 
ject the more readily accepted as correct by the mass of 
readers, and pointed him out as a proper person to sustain 
the abolition dogma that slavery is sinful, if it is sustain- 
able. He was therefore the proper person to pay my re- 
spects to, in doing what I thought, and still think, it was 
my duty to do. An article of his, published in brother 
Goodwin's paper. The Weekly Christian Record, of April 
8th, 1862, made the proper occasion for me to enter the 
arena; and I dropped a note to brother Goodwin, to know 
if I could have space in his paper to reply to the article, 
and received the following answer : 

Indianapolis, April 12, 1862. 

Bro. Smith : — Yours of yesterday is at hand^ and I an- 
swer, that you can have space in the W. C. Record to re- 
ply to Bro. Benton's article. I suppose you wish to notice 
that portion which seems to refer to American slavery. I 
have always been opposed to discussing that question in 
our paper, not because I thought it should not be discussed, 
but because I conceived the public mind not to be in a 
proper state to be profited by the discussion — nor am I sure 
the time is now fully come, though I think it is approaching. 

Please write in christian love, and for the good of the 
cause. Yours in hope, 

E. Goodwin. 

I sent an article, which was replied to by brother Ovid 
Butler, one of the bishops of the Christian Church at In- 
dianapolis, and President of the Board of Directors of the 
Northwestern Christian University. For a number of 
years, he was a prominent member of the bar at Indianap- 
olis, where he deservedly stood high ; but he retired from 
the practice some ten or fifteen years ago. His eminent 
abilities and position, and the fact that he had long been an 



46 INTRODUCTION. 

abolitionist, and was well grounded and established in his 
conviction that slavery is sinful, made him a very proper 
person to discuss that question with. A public correspond- 
ence ensued, which resulted in our entering into a regular 
discussion of the proposition, Slavery is sinful. Those pre- 
liminary articles, commencing with President Benton's, I 
now lay before the reader. 



[From the Christian Record, of April 8th, 1862.] 

FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



It is a most inexcusable wrong to stigmatize as fanatics, 
men of pure, disinterested and philanthropic aims in life. 
From this most flagrant injustice, even the religious press, 
and the pulpit are not altogether free. 

As a convenient polemical weapon, it has always been 
found easier to demolish an opponent by hurling public 
sentiment against him, than by calmly canvassing his views. 

This kind of treatment has been in vogue from ancient 
times, as for example, the case of Paul at Athens, when 
he preached to the people of that polite metropolis, Jesus 
and the Resurrection. When he came to that part of his 
discourse that treated of the Resurrection, they mocked, or 
tried to raise a laugh at his expense, as a most incorrigible 
simpleton and fanatic. Nor was this his only experience 
of that sort. 

While he was expounding the faith in the presence of 
Agrippa, Festus interrupted the flow of his discourse with 
this decisive refutation, in a loud voice — the louder the bet- 
ter in such a case — " Paul, thou art beside thyself, much 
learning doth make the mad ;" or, in modern parlance, you 
are a fool and fanatic. In calm response, the apostle af- 
firms his perfect sanity, and that he speaks forth " the words 
of truth and soberness." 

In this case, can there be any doubt v/ho was the fanatic, 
and who the wise and sober man ? 

Festus personates the fanatic of error ; Paul represents 
the man with the soundest judgment and life. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 47 

Festus was loud-moutbed in calling him by an opprobri- 
ous name, without the least propriety in fact; Paul evinces 
his freedom from all extravagance, by the most civil and 
courteous response. 

As the word fanaticism is somewhat in use now, and in- 
deed all the had words of our language are in uncommon 
demand at present, it must be worth a little thought to get 
the right use of the Satanic vocabulary. If we must use 
abusive and malign words, let us learn to use them with 
some propriety, for the sake of scholarship, if not of de- 
cency. 

I do not pretend to say that the bad words — the abusive 
epithets of the language — should be altogether dropped, 
for those are the Dahlgren guns by which some men do the 
most execution. They are the heavy artillery by which an 
adversary is sometimes effectually demolished, and great 
eclat comes to the victor. It is a very convenient proceed- 
ing, to send men straight to perdition upon our own judg- 
ment and responsibility. It is not enough that we can ex- 
communicate, but we have learned to anathematize and to 
brandish the most terrifying epithets. 

We do not insist, therefore, upon the total relinquish- 
ment of prescriptive rights in the use of formidable Avords, 
but only that they be used with due. Christian discrimina- 
tion. Now who is the fanatic ? 

Is he the man whb is a great enthusiast in behalf of the 
truth ? By no means. Paul was a great enthusiast, but no 
fanatic, in the opprobrious sense of that word. 

So enthusiastic was this devoted apostle, that, losing 
sight of every other interest, he said, " this one thing I do,"' 
and that in him we applaud. But the man who in the pres- 
ent time devotes himself to some one great philanthrophy,. 
is stigmatized as a " man of one idea," a fanatic, and forth- 
with to be frowned out of respectable society. 

Is this decorous, and of Christian charity, or of demoni- 
ac malignity ? 

Many Christian ministers, like Paul at Corinth, have de- 
termined to know nothing in their preaching but this one 
thing, " Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Let them rise to- 
the most unwanted pitch of enthusiasm on this unique 
theme, do they become thereby fanatical ? All right minded, 
men will answer, no. 



48 INTRODUCTION. 

Mere enthusiasm then for any truth is not fanaticism nor 
reprehensible, but they are obnoxious to this name, whose 
whole energy is given to the advocacy of wicked institu- 
tions and immoral practices. 

It is not strange that men of stolid indifference to the 
efforts made for meliorating the condition of mankind, 
should brand this philanthropic zeal as extravagance and 
fanaticism. Nor is it to be wondered at, that wicked men, 
zealous for the growth of some collossal crime in human so- 
ciety, should strive to bring into reproach, men by whom 
their craft is endangered. But that men, professing to re- 
vere God, and to obey his law, would strive to abate any 
ardor of Christian philanthropy, no matter in what form ex- 
hibited, and to contrive the means for the downfall of men 
devoted to any special good work, is passing strange. 

This fanaticism of wickedness often becomes ^' exceeding 
mad" against all forms of goodness, and like Saul of Tar- 
sus, pursues its victims even into strange cities. Fanati- 
cism is never allied to true religion or philanthropy,^ but is 
always in league with malignant emotions, and diabolical 
practices. It is a word derived from ^^ fanum" a temple 
at whose shrine the devotees indulged in the most abomina- 
ble orgies. 

These '-'- fanaiicr were the patrons and abettors of every 
detestable practice, and are the prototypes only of those 
who reverence some idol abomination, which, though ugly, 
is nevertheless mighty. 

St. Dominic, the arch inquisitor, was a famous type of a 
fanatic, in pursuing, with unflagging zeal, all dissenters 
from Roman Supremacy, in order to extirpate them utterly. 

To burn the body for the good of the soul, was the prime 
dogma of this class of fanatics, But this is a most malig- 
nant type of the evil, re- produced in different forms, from 
that time until the present, exhausting every form of perse- 
cution for opinion's sake ; at one time assailing the person, 
then the property, character, reputation or inlluence of the 
object of its hate. 

Every string in the whole gamut of persecution has been 
struck by this pestilential demon of fanaticism. 

(1) This is true ; hence it can not be allied to what pertains to Christianity, nor to true 
philanthropy. And as abolitionism is fanaticism, it is not allied to Christianity nor to phi- 
iauihropy. It ia neither. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 40 

No earnestness in the cause of truth and right should be 
stigmatized by an opprobrious name, but he is a desperate 
fanatic who lends his powers to the devil, in order to make 
wrong respectable, and to wear the semblance of religion. 

No sophistry will ever convince the world that the noble 
zeal of Howard, Wilberforce,^ and such as they, was an odi- 
ous fanaticism ; but the record of their philanthropic labors 
will be pondered with increasing delight, as long as virtue 
and religion are esteemed among men. 

A. K B. 



[Fi-Om the Christian Record of April 22cl, 1862.] 

FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



My esteemed brother A. R. B. has an article under this 
caption, in the Record of the 8th of April, that I propose 
to notice briefly. 

Fanaileism is defined to be : enthusiasm, religious phren- 
zy ; wild and extravjsgant notions. 

Afanaiicis defined to be: an enthusiast, a man mad (or 
monomaniac) witii wild notions. See Walker and Webster. 

Hence, " men of pure, disinterested and philanthropic 
aims in life," m.iy enthusiastically endeavor to effect their 
'• aims" by " v.ild and extravagant notions ;" or, their aims, 

(1) That President Benton, and all others of his school of opinion, may see how far 
they misapprehend Mr. Wilberforce, and how far they are misled by their aboUtionism, I 
append from the Loston Courier the following, copied by it from the London Times of 
March 2d, 1863 : 

* * * * Y^'q now give, from the Times of March 2d, a letter of a similar purport, 
from one of tin- sons of Wilberforce. Will the newspapers referred to allow their readers 
to see this ? 

MR. WILBERFOnCE OX A SESVILE INSURRECTION. 

To the Editor of the London Times : 

Sir— As far as it relates to Sir T. Fowell Buxton, the letter of Mr. Buxton has fully an- 
swered your question, " whether the sons of Wilberforce and of Buxton, who have all 
been brought up in the teaching of tlieir fathers, now share the opinions of the Emancipa- 
tion Society as to the proclamation of Mr. Lincoln." 

Allow me to add my testimony, as far as your question refers to the late William Wil- 
berforce. 

The last time I had the happiness of hearing him spealc in the House of Commons, he 
expressed in the strongest terms the same feelings contained in the words quoted by Mr. 
Buxton from his father's speech. None of his surviving friends need be reminded that he 
retained them undiminished to his life's end. On that occasion he had avowed in the 
House his feurs that the rejection of Sir T. F. Buxton's motion for the emancipation of the 



50 INTRODUCTION, 

though they think them philanthropic, may really be mis- 
anthropic, Utopian, impracticable, or such as they have no 
right to attempt to effect or carry out ; and, if so, they are 
clearly fanatics. 

My brother asks, " Who is the fanatic ? Is he the man 
who is a great enthusiast in behalf of the truth? By no 
means," says he. 

Those who follow the truth are not '* great enthusiasts." 
The Lord's life and teaching is conclusive proof of this. 
Paul was not an enthusiast, though my brother charges him 
with being one ; and though he did '' one thing," to-wit, 
" press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of 
God in Christ,"^ yet he also became all things to all men,^ 
and was not a " one-ideaed man." lie pressed toward the 
mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ, and 
not out of him, toward the effecting of some " aim " of his, 
which he thought was philanthropic, but which Christ, by 
his precepts and example, had taught him not to interfere 
with at all; though the institution which is made the pretext 
or occasion for this modern philanthropy, existed then uni- 
versally in a worse form than it has ever existed in any 
portion of this Union. 

Fanatics always seize hold of some truth, and combine 
with it some error, either of theory or fact, and become 
mad, monomaniac or phrenzied, upon their idea, and get 
into the strange hallucination that their way is the only 
way to benefit all mankind, and that all must partake of 
the benefit of their '* wild notions." 

Witness the Jews when Titus sat down before Jerusalem. 

slaves might lead to insurrection. The words were received with a cheer, as a concession, 
by his opponents. I shall never forget the earnestness with which he declared his horror 
at the thought, and solemnly appealed to Almighty God that it was his daily prayer thit 
nothing of the sort might talie place. 

It would be impossible that any of my father's sons should have watched, without the 
deepest interest, the beariug of recent events upon the condition and prospects of the ne- 
gro race, and 1 doubt not they have all formed the same conclusions with myself. My 
own position, as editor of a journal, has imposed upon me the moral responsibility of ex- 
pressing an opinion, and so compelled me to consider the whole subject. Allow me, then, 
to say that, if my father's life had been prolonged, I am certain, on the one hand, that his 
abhorrence for slavery and his zeal for emancipation would not have been lessened ; and 
equally certain, on the other hand, that he would have considered it a grievous crime 
to stir up insurrection and servile war ; doubly so, if it were done, not from mistaken 
benevolence, but from seljfsh political purposes. This, as Mr. Buxton truly says, *•< 
the only meaning of Mr. Lincoln^ s proclam,ation, if it has any meaning at all. * * 
1 am, sir, j'our obedient servant, 

Hknry Wm. Wilberforce, 
Weekly Ecgister newspaper office, 32 Erydges street, Strand, Feb. 26th, 13o3. 

(1) Phil, iii, 13, U. (Q) 1 Cor. ix, 22. 



PRELIMINARY COSRESPONDENCE. 51 

They had the religion given from heaven through Moses, 
were of the stock of the chosen people of God, and had 
the holy of holies to guard. See the Saracens. They had 
the truth that there is but one God, combined with the false- 
hood that Mahomet was his prophet, and coupled with these 
they had the " wild notion " that they must eradicate idola- 
try (in which Christendom was then sunken) and extend the 
benefits of their theory to all mankind. See the Crusaders 
of the seven crusades. They had the truth that our lives, 
labors and estates belong to God, and should all be expended 
in the service of Christ, combined with the falsehood, that 
reclaiming the tomb of the Savior at Jerusalem was the 
''one thing" required of them as servant's of Christ. 

The Jews' "one idea" was the extermination of the 
"monster iniquity" of the desecration of the holy city and 
temple by the Roman "power;" and by that fanaticism, 
3,000,000 were destroyed in nine months. 

The "one idea" of the Saracens, was the extermination 
of idolatry, and the extension of "the true faith" over 
mankind ; and that fanaticism, in 150 years, destroyed " the 
third part of men.'* The Crusaders had the "one idea" 
and " philanthrophy " of redeeming the holy sepulcher from 
the' infidels ; and, for two hundred years, in their seven cru- 
sades, they commil^ted atrocities and injuries to mankind so 
horrible, that when they were uttered by the seven thunders 
in the vision given to John, he was forbidden to write them 
out in the apocalypse.^ 

These are noted instances of fanatics and fanaticisms. 
And, as history is philosophy teaching by example, those 
of us who claim to be philosophers, should be taught by 
these fearful lessons. 

My esteemed brother calls the institution a " wicked in- 
stitution," a "collossal crime in human society;" and re- 
gards the utter eradication of it, without looking to our 
present condition and surroundings, as the " one great 
philanthropy." hi both of these he is in error. It is not a 
crime ; nor would the utter and immediate eradication of it 
be a philanthrophy, but a most woful calamity.^ But be- 

(1) Rev. ix, 15. (2) Eev. x, 4. 

(3) What little has actually been done in immediate emancipation of the slaves, up to 
this time, (March, 1863,) begins to show how great the calamity would be to both the 
white and black races, if the 4,000,000 slaves of the United States had really been eman- 
cipated by Lincoln's proclamation of Jan. 1st, 1863. 



52 INTRODUCTION. 

yond these, and more potent with christians, the institution 
is a part of, and belongs to, kingdoms of this world — human 
governments ; and hence is entirely a distinct thing, and 
separate from the kingdom of the Lord, which is not of this 
world. The Lord refused to interfere with, or to attempt 
any philant'nropic reformation of any of the kingdoms of 
this world, or of any of their institutions. His efforts and 
labors were to reform man, not to reform governments. He 
uniformly refused to interfere with governments, and gov- 
ernmental matters and business. 

Hence, this institution, and the philanthropy of my bro- 
ther in relation to it, are questions in political economy, 
and outside of Christianity. Christians ought to be careful 
how they become " zealous," *' enthusiastic," about things 
outside of Christianity. All the divisions among christians, 
and the consequent evils to Christianity, from the Arian 
controversy down to the dreamy theory of soul-sleeping, 
have been about matters outside of Christianity, and on ivhich 
revelation is silent. Hence, christians should learn wisdom 
from this sad experience, and adhere closely to the high call- 
ing of God in Christ — in his body — in his kingdom — and 
not get outside of him, and of matters revealed to us through 
or by him. May the Lord enable us to do so, that our zeal 
may be according to knowledge. J. S. 

April 15/A, 1862. 



{From the Christian Record, of April 29, 1S62.1 

FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



Bro. Goodwin : — In the Record of the 22d inst. I see an 
article by J. S. purporting to be a reply to the article en- 
titled " Fanaticism of Error," by A. R. B. published in the 
Record of the 8th. Apart from some immaterial difference 
of opinion as to the meaning of the words, fanatic and fa- 
naticism, I see nothing in the article of J. S. which can 
claim to be either a reply to, or a fair notice of the article 
of A. R. B. If I am not much mistaken, J. S. in his arti- 
cle affords abundant evidence that, according to his own 



PRELIMINAKY CORRESPONDENCE. 53 

definition of the term, he himself is a fiinatic. A. R. B. 
says nothing about slavery, and in his whole article neither 
makes an attack upon that institution, or a defense of abo- 
litionism, unless it be by an implication and construction, 
which clearly and certainly J. S. is not authorized to make. 
It is true that he says that "the man who in the present 
time devotes himself to one great philanthropy, is stigma- 
tised as a " man of one idea," a fanatic, and forthwith to 
be frowned out of respectable society," and again, "nor is 
it to be wondered at that wicked men, zealous for the 
growth of some collossal crime in human society, should 
strive to bring into reproach men, by whom their craft is en- 
dangered. But that men professing to revere God, and to 
obey his law, would strive to abate any ardor of christian 
philanthropy, no matter in what form exhibited, and to con- 
trive the means for the doAvnfall of men devoted to any 
special good w^ork, is passing strange." Believing, as I do, 
that the institution of slavery is a collossal crime, and that 
the effort to eradicate it is a great philanthropy, I might, 
perhaps, be justified in applying the language of A. R. B. 
to that institution, and to the efforts which are being made 
to effect its overthrow. But there is nothing in the article 
itself, to warrant my asserting that such ideas were in the 
mind of the writer,^ and I could only venture that infer- 
ence from my own deep convictions, that in that sense, the 
language is true. On account of these convictions, J. S. 
would call me a fanatic, and yet he must admit that they 
are Ids convictio7is, to justify his construction of the language 
of A. R. B. 

Apprised, as I have long been, that J. S. rejected the 
idea that slavery was a collossal crime, but that, on* the con- 
trary, he professed to believe that it was no evil, and that, 
instead of regarding the efforts for its removal as a great 
philanthropy, he entertained, and often expressed the opin- 
ion, that the agitation of the subject was criminal, and 
ought to be suppressed, I confess to a little astonishment at 
his readiness and quickness in construing the language of 
A. R. B. as referring to that subject. It proves, however, 
very clearly and conclusively, either that his convictions 
are at war with his professions, or that he is really and tru- 

(1) YetBro. Goodwin understood it as referring to slavery. See his letter, page 45. 



54 INTRODUCTION. 

\y the wildest fanatic — a monomaniac upon the subject of 
slavery. He has been long engaged, both in religion and 
politics, in efforts to exorcise the ghost of the slavery ques- 
tion ; still it haunts him. Is a coUossal crime spoken of — 
the ghost of slavery is presented vividly to his imagina- 
tion. Talk of a great philanthropy — and his teeming brain 
is alive with a whole army of abolition fanatics. If this be 
not fanaticism, and if he be not a fanatic, I confess that I 
do not understand the meaning of the terms, and it will be 
necessary for me to get a new dictionary to learn what 
they mean. I might, perhaps, get the right kind of one 
" down south," but as it might not be quite safe for me 
to go there just now, and as I could not hope that my or- 
der would be honored at Charleston or New Orleans, I must 
request J. S. to get me one from the printing establish- 
ment of De Bow. That, of course, would be all right. 

But there is evidence of progress in this production of 
J. S. I know him to have been opposed, bitterly opposed, 
to the agitation of the question of slavery. Neither in 
church or State — in religion or in politics, would he admit 
it to have a place. As a politician, he would suppress the 
discussion everywhere, " either in or out of Congress." 
As a religionist, he contended, as it seems he still contends, 
that '' the institution is a part of, and belongs to the king- 
dom of this world — human governments, and hence, entire- 
ly a distinct thing, and separate from the kingdom of the 
Lord, which is not of this world ;" and that " it is a ques- 
tion of political economy and outside of Christianity." 
This citizenship in the two kingdoms has been quite con- 
venient to J. S. It has enabled him in either kingdom to 
evade the discussion of the question of slavery, by put- 
ting in a plea to the jurisdiction. But this article of J. S.'s^ 
affords some evidence that he is getting ashamed of the 
dodge. He ventures beyond the line of his defenses, to 
meet and refute, in the moral field, the proposition which 
he himself has constructed out of the material furnished 
him by A. R. B. 

He says, " My esteemed brother calls the institution 
a * wicked institution,' a ' collossal crime in human society,' 
and regards the utter eradication of it, without looking to 
our present condition and surroundings, as the one great 
philanthropy." This involves a proposition, which, al- 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 55 

though not to be found in the article of A. R. B., J. S. 
has framed for the purpose of meeting and refuting it. In 
thus attempting to refute the proposition, he has entered 
the field of controversy, which he so much deprecates, but 
in thus crossing the Rubicon, he has used the precaution to 
throw across it a pontoon bridge, not only to assist him in 
crossing, but to facilitate his retreat, in case he should 
deem it prudent to retire. He enters the field under pro- 
test to the jurisdiction, and still says that the matters in 
controversy, " are questions of political economy, and out- 
side of Christianity.^^ In other words, that the christian's 
Lord has no jurisdiction over them, and here is his whole 
argument, in refutation of the proposition above named. 
He says, in reference to his " esteemed brother,'' and to 
his supposed proposition, *' I)i both of these he is in error." 
" It," (the institution) " is not a crime, nor would the ut- 
ter and immediate eradication of it, be a philanthropy, but 
a most woeful calamity." This is a bold and brief argu- 
ment, and is final and conclusive, if we accept the opinions 
of J. S. as unerring and infallible. In one respect, if in 
no other, it resembles the teachings of the Master, for J. S., 
speaks " as one having authority." If we admit the author- 
ity, there is an end of all controversy upon the subject. 
But upon this point of authority, I hesitate, and I suppose 
that others may be reluctant to allow the claim. 

But there is hope for J. S. His position is in advance of 
his former one. He is willing that the question of slavery 
should be discussed, at least on one side of it, and that is 
yielding half of his objections to its agitation. I suspect 
that he will yield farther soon, and relying upon his own 
powers of assertion and argument, he may perhaps ofi'er a 
full discussion of the question, provided he can have the 
privilege of shaping the propositions to his own liking.^ 
But it is too late. The question is no longer a deoateahle one. 
The logic of the schools has been exhausted upon it, and so 
far as the argument of words is concerned, the question is 
settled. The glorious gospel of a common brotherhood in 
humanity — of man's equality before God and before the 
law, has been preached to every willing ear thorughout the 



(1) This satisfies my mind that brother Butlkr had a hand in shaping the course that 
brother Bocjgs took in the preceding correspondence. 



56 INTRODUCTION. 

land. Those who have rejected it, have done so obstinately 
and -willfully, and no human argument can reach them. 

Our God, the Father of all, has assumed, and is now con- 
ducting this great controversy. " He doeth according to 
His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants 
of the earth." By the stern and terrible logic of events, 
He is developing this argument, and working in the hearts 
of the unwilling, a conviction of the great truth that '' God 
is no respecter of persons." I have strong faith that the 
doom of slavery is the inevitable result of the present fear- 
ful conflict,^ and I pray to God that in the effort to save it 
from utter destruction, our Government and, our Union may 
not be borne down and perish with it. 0. B. 



[From the Christian Record of May 6th, 1862.] 

FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



My dear brother 0. B., in the last 'Record^ has a very 
heated article on the brief notice of (not reply to) the arti- 
cle of my esteemed brother A. R. B. under this caption. 

I said nothing about slavery, if A. R. B. did not. Slavery 
is not found in my article any more than it is in his. Neither 
of the vrords slavery nor abolitionism is found in my article. 
But it is clear that A. R. B.'s article referred to slavery 
as the " collossal crime in human society," and abolitionism 
as the " one great philanthrophy," for which he com- 
plained that they were stigmatized as men " of one idea," 
though he did not use the terms. I did the same in no- 
ticing his article, though I would just as soon have spoken 
out, and used the terms direct. 

If others choose to sow their poison in the public mind, 
under covert means, by using indirect terms, that when 
called to account for it, they may deny and say, " that was 
not what I meant," I choose to beat the bush, and drive 
them from their covert, by assuming the same flimzy garb, 

(1) This shows that abolitionists, from the beginning of the present unfortunate civil 
war, regarded it as a war for the aboUtion of sJavery. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 57 

that tliey may have assumed ; and, so far as my dear brother 
0. B. is concerned, it seems that I have succeeded admira- 
bly in this case. 

Fanaticism was the subject under the consideration of my 
esteemed brother A. R. B. and myself. After my dear 
brother 0. B. says, "z7 is too late'' to doubt that the institu- 
tion of slavery is sinful, that ^Hhe question is no longer a 
debatable one,'' it is not hard to find where the fanaticism 
is, in this unfortunate and dire controversy that is upon us 
in all its horrors. But if added to that, we look through 
the paragraph in which this is found, and the succeeding 
one, demonstration clear as noon-day bursts upon us. 

Slavery is an institution of civil government ; it is a part 
of the kingdoms of this world. In the United States, it 
always has been, and still is, a State institution. Hence, 
citizens of the States where it exists, are the only ones that 
have any constitutional right to take any political action in 
relation to it, or to discuss any political action "in relation 
to it ; and if others do it, they are " busy-bodies," so far as 
political action is concerned. 

But it has been harped so long, that thousands of excel- 
lent people have got to believe that it is true, that it is a 
sin; aud hence, as they desire to eradicate all sin from the 
earth, they have entered into crusades against it, increasing 
in intensity and vigor, till our present woful condition ex- 
ists. And now it is too late to question that it is a sin ! 
*'JThe ^question is no longer debatable " ! What further 
proof need any sober, rational man have, of the fanaticism 
of the crusades, and of the dire situation we are in, our 
public affairs being in the hands of men of that notion ? 

The institution of slavery is not sinful. If it were, how- 
ever, as it is a governmental sin, christians, as such, have 
nothing to do with it ; for they labor in a kingdom not of 
this world. But if it were sinful, and christians might in- 
terfere with governmental sins, as it does not exist in the 
free States, we of the free States, as christians, have no 
more right, and are no more bound in christian duty, to in- 
terfere with it, than we have right, or are bound to interfere 
with the Cuban, English, French or Austrian governmental 
sins. 

These are my positions, and show the reasons why I say 
that christians should not alloAv themselves to be divided 
5 



58 INTRCDUCTION.- 

and distracted by matters pertaining to the kingdoms of 
this world ; and though I do not desire to debat-e, yet, with 
the truth of God's revelation of his will to us, I hold my- 
self amply able to sustain them upon all proper occasions. 

J. S. 
April Both, 1862. 

The following note was appended to A. R. B.'s article in 
the liecord of May 6th, 1862 :. 

^ NOTE TO J. S. 

My respect for Br. S. would not permii his remarks on 
my article entitled " Fanaticism of Error,*' to pass without 
notice, and therefore I prepared another article on that sub- 
ject for the Hecard of this week; but as another brother 
has seen fit' to make some strictures upon Bro. S.'s commu- 
nication, I have thought it unnecessary to publish what I 
had written before the article of Bro. 0. B. came under my 
notice. A. R. B. 

• 

And the following appeared as editorial in the Record of 
May 6th, 1862 : 

'' FANATICISM OF ERROR.'' 

Our readers have noticed a few articles in our paper un- 
der the above title. They are well written and breathe the 
right spirit; but we think those who have written the last 
papers are given the subject a turn that the author of the 
first article did not anticipate. How much farther these 
brethren may desire to carry the matter, we know not ; but 
we wish it distinctly understood, that we publish an inde- 
pendent sheet, and that both sides to any question that 
may be introduced into our columns shall be heard, as long 
as the writers discuss the merits of the question at issue, 
avoid personal invectives, and treat each other as christians. 
Any matter of a moral character, upon which honest men 
may have different views, may legitimately be discussed in 
our religious papers. Purely political questions we prefer, 
however, to keep out of the Recoi^d; but the moral phase of 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 59 

questions that only exist by the protection of the civil law, 
may be investigated, without considering its political bear- 
ings. Should these brethren continue this subject, we hope 
they will look at it only as a moral question. 



[From the Christian Record of May 20th, 1S62."] 

COMMUNICATIOISr. 



Bro. Goodwin: — I suppose that J. S. will expect me to 
notice his article, published in the Record of the 6tli inst., 
and I desire to do so briefly. He calls my former commu- 
nication a very " heated article." If it deserves that epi- 
thet, I was not aware of it. I leave the readers of the 
Record to judge whether the epithet is rightly applied. 

He says, that " neither the word slavery or aholiiionisin^ 
is found in" his article, and intimates that it was as free of 
the ideas represented by these words, as was the article of 
A. R. B. He seems to suppose that I had not noticed the 
absence of these words in his article, and had been as hasty 
in my construction of it, as I had charged that he was, in 
his construction of the language of A. R. B. I certainly 
had not failed to notice that neither the word slavery or 
abolitionism was used by him, and if I made an erroneous 
or even hasty construction of his article — if his language 
be fairly or even possibly capable of any construction, other 
than that I gave it, I am properly subject to his criticism. 
Of this, too, the readers of the Record can judge. 

But a graver matter is the insinuation of J. S. that the 
article of A. R. B. was an effort to "sow poison in the pub- 
lic mind under covert means, by using indirect terms," and 
that these covert means and direct terms were employed by 
A. R. B. to enable him to deny their real meaning ^'wJien- 
called to account for itJ^ This charge^ against A. R. B. is 

(1) It vras not a c\iarge against A. R. B, particularly, but a general proposition that fits 
the action of abolitionists generally ; and my applicatton of it to O. B., that I had thereby 
brought him to use direct terms, shows that 1 used the expression in the general sense, and 
not as a charge individually against brother Bkntox. 



60 INTRODUCTION. 

most unjust, and might be construed to involve a threats 
which it is possible J. S. might not have the power to exe- 
cute. I need only to refer the reader to the article of A. 
R. B. to show that the language used by him has no con- 
cealed or covert meaning, and that no indirect terms are 
emploj^ed by him. The words objected to by J. S. have as 
clear and certain meaning as any words in the English lan- 
guage. It is not probable that A. R. B. will think it neces- 
sary either to confess or deny, or to give any explanation 
of his language, either to help or to hinder the construction 
which J. S. has put upon it, even if " called to account for 
it/' 

Under the apprehension that something offensive to him 
was hidden under the language of A. R. B., J. S. says that 
he " chose to beat the bush, and drive them from their 
covert,'' and he felicitates himself, that, so far as I am con- 
cerned, he has ^' succeeded admirably." If it is a bush he 
has been beating, I was not under its covert, and hence he 
can not claim to have driven me out. I had nothing to do 
with the article of A. R. B. — was not consulted in reference 
to it — and had no knowledge or intimation of its existence, 
until I saw it in print. 

It is, I think, evident, that J. S. wishes to have a discus- 
sion upon the subject of slavery, and is somewhat disturbed 
at my remark, " that the question is no longer a debatable 
one." Indeed, he seems to regard the disposition to con- 
sider the question settled, and the debate upon it closed, as 
of at least as baneful a character, and as pernicious a ten- 
dency, as he has hitherto regarded, and still seems to con- 
sider the disposition to discuss it. According to his logic, 
the harping upon — the agitation of this subject — -has 
brought us to " our present woful condition." And now, 
if it be proposed to cease agitation, to terminate the debate, 
and regard the question as settled, he discovers fanaticism 
in the proffered silence, and talks of " the dire situation we 
are in," on account of " public affairs being in the hands of 
men of that notion." There is apparent inconsistency in 
these views of J. S., but perhaps he thinks that our com- 
munity is affected with a species of hydrophobia, from the 
bite of that rabid animal, called agitation, and concludes, 
perhaps wisely, to apply the well recommended remedy of 
" the hair of the dog to cure the bite." 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 61 

However that may be, J. S. has presented and crowded 
together rather confusedly three propositions, which he 
seems not unwilUng to debate. He thus states them : 

'• The institution of slavery is not sinful. If it Avere, 
however, it is a govermental sin ; christians, as such, have 
nothing to do with it, for they labor in a kingdom not cf 
this world. But if it were sinful, and christians might in- 
terfere with governmental sins, as it does not exist in the 
free States, we of the free States, as christians, have no 
more right, and are no more bound, in christian duty, to in- 
terfere with it, than we have, or are, to interfere with the 
Cuban, English, French, or Austrian governmental sins." 

These J. S. calls his positions, and, in reference to them, 
he says, " and though I do not desire to debate, yet with 
the truth of God's revelation* of his will to us, I hold my- 
self amply able to sustain them upon all proper occasions." 

Were I to undertake to discuss the subject of slavery 
with J. S., I should not choose to do so upon his proposi- 
tions, in the form he has given them. They are all nega- 
tives, and by negation, is the worst and most unusual form 
for stating a proposition for discussion. The second and 
third propositions are stated hypothetically, and are, I 
doubt not, simply intended as a double line of defense, 
around the first or main proposition. The third proposi- 
tion raises an immaterial question, for it may be that it is 
our right and our duty to denounce sin, in both a sister 
State and a foreign jurisdiction, and that the extent of the 
right, and the measure of the duty, in either case, would 
depend upon our means and facilities for doing so effectual- 
ly. The proposition presents no issue of sufficient impor- 
tance to invite discussion. Indeed, I regard the language 
of all the propositions as inapt and indefinite. 

But all this is immaterial, as I am not disposed to under- 
take a set debate, or a formal discussion of the subject. 
Keither health nor time will permit me to promise so much 
now. I will, however, suggest a proposition, which I think 
would cover the whole field of argument. It is this : 

American slavery, as established, recognized, or permit- 
ted by the laws of the slaveholding States, and exemplified 
in the condition, character and conduct of both masters and 
slaves, is sin against God, and against humanity. 

This proposition is, I think, broad enough to embrace the 



62 INTRODUCTION. 

whole subject, and definite enough to invite a full discussion 
of all its details. 

Although, for the reasons above stated, I can not prom- 
ise to attempt a formal discussion of it, yet if J. S. thinks 
proper to assume the negative, and the editor of the Record 
consents to give us room in his columns, I will endeavor to 
furnish some articles, from time to time, to sustain the prop- 
osition, and to meet, as best I may, and so far as I may 
think necessary to a proper' understanding of the subject, 
such arguments as J. S.' may offer against the proposition. 

If, however, J. S. is not satisfied with this proposition, or 
if he prefers another course of proceeding, it is possible to 
present the question in a form, and to proceed with the de- 
bate, in a manner which I presume is quite familiar to him, 
much more so, indeed, than they are now to me. I would 
propose that, upon an agreed case in the Court of Con- 
science, Jesus the Lord j^^esiding as sole Judge, Legree be 
considered as arraigned, upon an indictment for the enslave- 
ment, oppression, and murder of Uncle Tom, the facts 
charged in the indictment to be such, and only such acts of 
ownership, control, use and treatment of Uncle Tom, by 
Legree, as by the laws of slaveholding States, are regarded 
as the lawful, justified, or permitted acts of the master, in 
reference to his slave. If J. S. thinks that the laws of the 
State of Louisiana, or of any other slaveholding State, will 
constitute a good defense, he can make them available, by 
pleading them in abatement to the jurisdiction of the Court. 
Upon a demurrer to such a plea, the whole question would 
come up for argument in a form with which J. S. is un- 
doubtedly familiar, for, if I mistake not, he has long prac- 
ticed before, and presided in courts of justice, in some, or 
at least one of the " kingdoms of this world." It would 
be an aspersion of his character as a christian, to suppose 
that he was not also familiar with the practice in the " Court 
ef Consciences^ which is a high Court, in the ^^ kingdom 
ivhich is not of this ivorld.^^ The law which would govern 
the case, would be " God's revelation of his will to us^' 
which is the supreme law and sole authority in that Court, 
in which Jesus the Lord presides as Judge. Although the 
Judge might be suspected of pity and sympathy for the 
poor, degraded, down-trodden, and oppressed of humanity, 
yet, as J. S. affirms- that he "refused to interfere with, or 



♦ PrwELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 63 

attempt any philanthropic reformation of any of the king- 
doms of this world, or of any of their institution; s," I sup- 
pose he would be willing that the case be tried in this Court. 
I submit these suggestions for the consideration of J. S., 
and wish to know his further pleasure in the prcniises. 

0. B. 



[From the Christian Record, of May 2Tth, 1862.] 

FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



An article from Bro. 0. B., in the Record of the 20th of 
May, requires some notice from me. 

1 spoke of " the dire situation we are in, our public af- 
fairs being in the hands of men" who set it down as a fore- 
gone conclusion, that slavery is' sinful, and that that propo- 
sition is no longer disputable. This my language clearly 
indicates, and not that they are in the hands of men who 
agitate (not discuss) the slavery question, as Bro. 0. B. 
says I say. 

Slavery is either sinful or it is not sinful. Brother 0. B. 
and those who have been and are acting with him — " agita- 
ting" — constantly denounce it in such phrases as "the sin 
of slavery," " the sum of all villianies," " the monster in- 
iquity," " the colossal crime," &c. And yet my dear broth- 
er 0. B. will not undertake to affirm directly that it is sin- 
ful, and attempt to sustain his affirmation by the good word 
of the Lord, written in God's revelation of his will to us !. 
But in lieu thereof, he proposes this wordy verbosity — not 
to discuss it in form — but to " furnish some articles from 
time to time, to sustain" it. 

" American slavery as established, recognized or permit- 
ted by the laws of the slaveholding States, and exempli- 
fied in the condition, character and conduct of both masters 
and slaves, is sin against God, and against humanity." 

Slavery and marriage are both institutions of civil gov- 
ernment, and relations existing in human society. Had ifc 



64 • INTRODUCTION. • 

been constantly " harped " and " agitated " for thirty years 
past, that marriage is sinful, using constantly such set phra- 
ses in speaking of it, as *' the sin of marriage," " the sum 
of all villainies," " the monster inqiuity," " the colossal 
crime," until society v/as upturned, and civil war of most 
gigantic proportions was inaugurated ; and then, when it 
was proposed to examine and see whether there was not an 
error in the grand, cardinal proposition, by which the storm 
had been fanned into existence, those who had been so con- 
stantly "harping" and '' agitating," instead of meeting the 
question squarely, and affirming directly that marriage is 
sinful, as they had been doing all the time, propose to fur- 
nish some articles, from time to time, to sustain the propo- 
sition that "American marriage, as established, recognized 
or permitted by the laws of (some or all) the States, and 
exemplified in the condition, character and conduct of both 
husbands and wives, is sin against God and against human- 
ity"! would not all see that it was an evasion, and an attempt 
to avoid the discussion of the question whether marriage is 
sinful or not, and to get off into a logomachy about the laws 
-of States, and the conduct of husbands and wives, in dis- 
charging their respective duties pertaining to the marriage 
relations ? I think there can be no doubt but that all would 
60 see it. Can not we now look equally dispassionately 
and sanely upon the question, whether slavery is sinful or 
not? and upon the conduct of those who have been so long 
asserting that it is sinful? 

The inquiry is, Is the relation of master and slave a sin- 
ful relation ? Is it sinful for men to hold that relation to 
each other ? It is not whether a master or a slave sins by 
improperly discharging the duties required of him by that 
rplation. Many husbands and wives commit many sins, by 
failing to discharge the duties required of them by the mari- 
tal relation ; but that only proves them sinners, and does 
not prove marriage sinful. So many masters and slaves 
commit many sins, by failing to discharge the duties re- 
quired of them by the relation existing between them ; but 
that only proves them sinn&rs, and not thd^t slavery is sinful. 
Brother 0. B., not only thus goes av/ay from the ques- 
tion at once, but gravely proposes to me to go into trial 
in a " court of conscience," of Legree and Uncle Tom, as 
set forth in the fiction called Un.cle Tom's Cabin ! The re- 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 65 

vealed will of God to him and me is, to "think of what- 
soever things are true,"^ and not to think of, or contem- 
plate, much less to enter into a grave discussion in a pub- 
lic, religious paper, of fictions that never existed, except in 
the imaginations of persons whose conduct in bruiting 
abroad such fictions, whether intended by them or not, pro- 
duce "hatred," "variance," "wnith," "strife," and "sedi- 
tion," all of which are denounced by the good word of the 
Lord, as being works of the flesh, and sinful.^ I shall ab- 
stain from either discussing or circulating such fictions. 
Bro. 0. B. and those who agree with him, will, of course, 
act as they see proper in the prennses. They and I have 
each to account for himself, and ri';C for the rest of us. 

The Lord has not erected a "court of conscience," nor 
made it a " high court " in hi^< kingdom. Our own con- 
sciences are witnesses for ourselves, not courts in which 
to try either ourselves or our brethren, much less such a 
fictitious person as Legree. 

The fanaticism of the en- 'i- into which my brother 0. B. 
and those who think and ;ict with him. have fallen, is now 
apparent. They assume that slavery is sinful. They re- 
peat it till they believe it to be not only so, but indisputa- 
bly so. When their pr ^josition is denied, and they respect- 
fully asked to prove ny the word of God that slavery is 
sinful, they " enthusi:jstically " say that American slavery, 
as it exists, by the I .ws of the slave States, and exemplified 
in the character jp 1 conduct of the masters and slaves, is 
sin ; that is, the c uduct of the masters and slaves is sinful, 
and they have a bad character, therefore, the slave laws of 
the States are bad ; therefore, American slavery is a sin 

against God ;iiid humanit}^ and slavery itself is 

sinful, but we will not undertake to prove it to be so by the 
word of God ; and then propose their " wild notion" that we 
go into th'' high court of conscience, created by the Lord, 
when he lu ver created such a court, and there try a ficti- 
tious being, taking fictions for lacts, and thus settle the 
question 1" 

(1) Phil, iv, 8. (2). Gal. v, 19-21. 

(3) That tlie reader may see the difference between the^ci'/o?e. of Uncle Tom's Caljin, 
and the /ao^ of Uncle Tom himself, I insert the following from the the Frankfork Ken- 
tucky Commonwealth of December, 1862 : 

UxcLE Tom's Cabin. — Some time after Mrs. Beecher Stowe had her Abolition production, 
called "Uncle Tom's Cabin," published, and it had taken a run, sucii as works of fiction 



GQ INTRODUCTION. 

May we all grow in the knowledge of the ii^uih, and thus 
be cured of our errors, as well as be relieved of the fanati- 
cisms of them, is my prayer. J. S. 

P. S. — If 0. B., or A. R. B., or any of that school of 
opinion, will undertake to prove by the Scriptures that 
slavery is sinful, I will discuss the question with them in 
the Record^ on equal terms. If they do not, I hope that 
they will quit denouncing it as a sin, and thus misleading 
the brethren, and fanning up strife and civil war for its ex- 
termination, and the destruction of us as a nation and peo- 
ple. 



[From the Christian Record of June 3d, 1862.] 

COMMUNICATION. 



Bro. Goodwin: — Passing by some remarks in the recent 
article of J. S., as unnecessary to notice here, I desire to 
notice his assertion that I will not undertake to affirm 
directly that slavery is sinful, and attempt to sustain the 

often do, without any one being able to account for the morbid appetite that craves such 
books, we saAv it stated in a newspaper that Henry Ward Beecher had represented, in a 
puplic lecture he was delivering, that there was such a personage as Uncle Tom — a real 
character, on whose history his sister founded her book ; that Uncle Tom lived in a cabin 
near Indianapolis, Indiana, at the time he himself resided there, and, in connection with 
his account of Uncle Tom, he spoke in very feeling terms of his own early trials in begin- 
ning his ministry at Indianapolis, and the words of encouragement received by him from 
the then Governor, N. Noble, of that State, under whose protection Uucle Tom then 
lived. * * * * * * * * * *.* 

We have sometimes thought tliat we had done wrong in not making known the facts about 
Uncle Tom, as we have since found many Abolition brothers and sisters, and other weak- 
minded, story loving readers, who believed firmly that there was not only such a person- 
age as Uncle Tom, but that his life and history were truthfully given by Mrs. Beecher 
Stowe, and that all of her other characters were drawn from life. 

In one thing she gave Uucie Tom's character correctly. He was a noble man by nature, 
and a Christian by practice— what used to be called an old fashioned Virginia gentleman— 
a man of mark wherever he went. For, though a negro, and a full blooded one, his 'per- 
sonal appearance was commanding, and his open, gentle, manly countenance made him 
warm friends of all persons, white and black, who became acquainted with him. He lived 
to be, as was belived, over one hundred years of age, and, whilst a slave, never was out 
of the family to which he belonged. He was born and raised in the famil}' of Nobles, of 
Virginia ; came to Kentucky, the property of Dr. Thomas Noble, who lived, when he first 
came to Kentucky, back of Covington, then Campbell, now Kenton county, about ten miles, 
at a place which was afterward the farm of Major Winston, and on which he lived many 
years. Dr. Noble afterwards moved to Boon county, at a place afterwards called Bellevue, 
and there lived many years, and was there buried. 

Dr. Noble was a man of the old school, the compeer of Major Tliomas Martin, Col. 
John Grant and his brother. Squire Grant, Gen. James Taylor, George Gordon, and many 
other early settlers, who were old men when we were a boy, men full of that jollity aijd 



PEELIMINAFvY CORRESPONDENCE. 67 

affirmative bj the good word of the Lord, written in God's 
revelation of his will to us, but in lieu thereof, I propose a 
" word J verbosity," kc. 

The proposition which I suggested, and to prove which I 
offered, in case it should be denied, to submit some argu- 
ments, is as clear, as definite, and as positive an affirmation, 
that " American slavery is sin," as it is possible for me to 
make it. I limited the affirmation to American slavery; 
for whatever may be our opinion of the moral character of 
Jewish servitude, or Roman slavery, these opinions are 
merel}^ speculative, and have no practical importance at the 
present day. I decline any discussion of them any further 
than they may be legitimately introduced as arguments, 
either for or against American slavery. My proposition 
embraced a definition of American slavery, or, in other 

good nature so common among the early settlers of. Kentucky : who took a part in their 
time, and a goodly part of it, too, to the cultivation of the social graces; who loved each 
other as sparsely-settled people, in a new country, always do, and did not make the gain 
of dollars and cents the only or chief object of life. 

After Dr. Noble's death, Uncle Tom continued on the farm and managed the same, under 
the direction of his mistress, until she died, when, under some arrangement among the 
heirs. Thomas and Sarah, his wife, were permitted to go free. 

During the period that Uncle Tom was chief overseer for Mrs. Noble, our first recollec- 
tion of him began. We were a small boy, and being on a visit to kindred were playing 
with an uncle, also a boy about our age, in the vicinity of Mrs. Noble's barn, when we 
heard the sound of stripes being pretty well laid on some person, who was begging earn- 
estly to be let off; on looking through a crack in the side of the barn we saw old man 
Thomas administering upon a young negro man pretty severely. 

The cause, we learned, was that the young negro had failed to worm a piece of tobacco 
which Thomas had directed, when leaving home a day or two before, and which his expe- 
rienced eye detected to have been greatly slighted by the young negro. 

Young as we were we could but express our astonishment at the young man submitting 
to be whipped, when Thomas remarked, "He knew he deserved it, my son, for disobe- 
dience of my orders, and for telling a story by saying he had killed all the worms, when 
the plants showed the contrary." 

Uncle Tom believed that the negroes were, in the general, better off with good masters 
than to be left to themselves. That white people never would recognize them as equals, 
nor consent to their having equality with them, in church or State. 

His own history verified his belief. When Mrs. Noble died, Thomas, who had never 
thought of leaving her whilst she lived, was advised to go to Cincinnati and live ; that he 
would there find many of his race free, and have their society, and be where he could have 
church advantages. He spent some daj^s amongst tbe free negroes of Cincinnati, and re- 
turned to the house of one of his advisers with this answer: 

" Miss M 1 can't live with the people I have seen in Cincinnati. They would not suit 

me to live with. But few of them work, and nearly all are worthless. I am going to get 

master N to buy me some ground near Lawrenceburg, where master L— 

N and Miss L V live, and Sarah and I will live near them, and we know 

they will see we are not imposed on." 

They lived at Lawrenceburg until L N and L V left there, and 

then becoming dissatsifled, Noah Noble moved the old people to his land, near Indianapo- 
lis, where they both remained until tliey died. 

Thomas and Sarah were never separated for a week in their lives. Never belonged to 
any one but Dr. Thos. No))le and his wife, and the heirs of Dr. Noble, and, when they were 
. permitted go free, they clung to the family ; knowing this fact, there was not one of them 
who would not care for them and provide for their wants. 

The mock sensiblility, which so often wept over Uncle Tom's fate, has lost its tears over 
a fiction. We have ourself seen men and women making a great to do over the negroes, 
wiio would let the poor white women and children perish with himger and cold. * * 

Three of the Noble family yet live, who can correct us if we have not stated Uncle Tom's 
history aright. L. T. 



t)« INTRODUCTION. 

words, simply expressed what I mean by those terms. It 
is, I suppose, on this account that J. S. calls it a " wordy 
verbosity." The objection shows clearly the necessity for 
defining, in the proposition itself, what is meant by the use 
of the terms A merican slavery. 

American slavery is not simply an abstract idea — a legal 
fiction, or a imked theory. It is also the necessary inci- 
dents, results and consequences of these, as developed in 
the condition, character and conduct of both masters and 
slaves. Slavery exists both in theory and in practice, both in 
law and in fact. It is not simply in the abstract, but in the 
concrete, that I desire to consider it, if I make it the sub- 
ject of discussion. I would not undertake to prove Satan 
a sinner, if limited solely to the consideration of his per- 
sonal being, and precluded from any and all reference to 
his sensations, volitions, and actions, nor am I disposed to 
attempt to prove that the theory — the institution or system 
of slavery — is a sin, separate from, and independent of its 
effects and consequences, in and upon the condition, char- 
acter, and conduct of masters and slaves. The whole eifort 
to show that slavery — the relation of master and slave — is 
sinless, has been expended upon the consideration of slavery 
in the abstract, and in the unwarranted separation of the 
institution, and the relation from their necessary incidents 
and qualities. I do not propose to meet the question in 
that shape. I do not know that it would be profitable to do 
so. The proposition, as it stands, embraces my definition 
of American slavery, and expresses my conviction of its 
moral character. If, in the terms in which it is stated, J. 
S. admits its truth, there can be no controversy between us 
about it. Or, if he regards the proposition as immaterial 
or unimportant, he will, of course, decline to discuss it. 
But if he considers it false in fact, and pernicious in ten- 
dency, he will probably attempt to refute it. 

I will here re-state the proposition. It is as follows : 
American slavery, as established, recognized, or permitted 
by the laws of the slaveholding States, and exemplified in 
the condition, character, and conduct of both masters and 
slaves, is sin against God and against humanity. 

The institution of marriage and slavery, J. S. regards as 
parallel institutions, equally sacred, and equally entitled to 
the respectful consideration of a christian people. In pre- 



PRELIMINARY CORRESrONDENCE. 69 

senting his vievrs, he thus speaks of them : " Shivery and 
marriage are both institutions oi civil government, and re- 
Lations existing in human society." He reasons, in effect, 
that the one is entitled to equal protection and respect with 
the other. This view is so monstrous, so abhorrent, and so 
offensive to the moral sense, that I confess I am not yet 
able to look steadily and calmly at it. 

The divine institution of marriage, paralleled and asso- 
ciated with the diabolical institution of chattel slavery, is a 
thought too revolting for calm consideration. But they are 
so presented by J. S., and the consideration is thus forced 
upon me. I remark, then, that marriage is a divine ordi- 
nance, existing before and above the institution of marriage 
by the civil government. The civil institution of marriage 
is in harmony with, and in furtherance of, the divine pur- 
pose in its ordination. For this reason the institution of 
marriage is rightly regarded as sacred and holy. If there 
be aught in the civil institution, in contravention of the 
divine purpose, or in violation of the law of God in refer- 
ence to it, in just so far is the civil institution sinful. Such 
are some of the features of the civil institution of marriage 
in the territory of Utah, and these might, perhaps, justly 
be paralleled with the institution of slavery in some of its 
revolting features. But the consideration of the subject of 
marriage in its relation to slavery, properly belongs to a 
more advanced stage in the discussion of this question. 
Should I reach that point in the discussion,! may then give 
it further consideration. 

J. S. seems much shocked at my offer to discuss the 
question with him, in the form of a legal argument, upon a 
case to be agreed upon, and referred to a court of con- 
science. He rebukes me for proposing to use " fictions 
that never existed," in making up an agreed case for " a 
grave 'discussion in a public religious paper," and asserts 
that "the Lord never erected a court of conscience, nor 
made it a high court in his kingdom." J. S. is well aware 
that there are in the civil courts agreed cases, or cases 
founded upon assumed facts, having no real existence, and 
that these constitute a large proportion of the cases litiga- 
ted in such courts. To these J. S. does not object. He is 
familiar with their use, and aware of the benefits derived 
from them. But ho objects to their use, in " a grave dis- 



70 IXTRODUCTION. 

cussion in a public religious paper." On the bench and at 
the bar, he possibly i*€gards himself as '* outside of Chris- 
tianity," and at liberty to use means for the ascertainment 
of truth, which he thinks are prohibited in the " kingdom 
of the Lord," and in the investigation of moral questions. 
The Great Teacher was proverbial for the use of parables, 
as the means of communicating moral truths, and this fact, 
as it seems to me, fully justifies the use of fiction to the ex- 
tent and in the manner I proposed. If J. S. does not like 
the names of Legree and Uncle Tom, there could be no ob- 
jection to his selecting such as he might choose, to person- 
ate the characters and conduct of masters and slaves. 

Civil governments have their courts of conscience so des- 
ignated because they a^ssurae to decide according to right 
and conscience, unembarrassed by the technicalities of 
strictly legal proceedings. The highest Court in England 
is called a court of conscience, and the Lord Chancellor, 
who presides in it, is called the keeper of the king's con- 
science. Our own courts of equity, either State or National, 
are courts of conscience. Writers upon national law rec- 
ognize the existence of a national conscience, a public 
moral sense, before and by which public acts, done or con- 
templated, are tried, and either approved or condemned. 
There is established in the human heart, by God the Crea- 
tor, who has so fearfully and wonderfully made man, a 
court of conscience, which decides upon the moral character 
of human actions. If Jesus the Lord presides in that 
court — if the law of the Lord, as revealed to us in his 
Word, be administered there, its decisions must be just, 
righteous and irreversable. Is it possible that there can be 
found a citizen of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, who de- 
nies tlie existence of such a court in the Lord's kingdom. 
J. S. does so, and we therefore need not be surprised at his 
denial of the sinfulness of American slavery. 

J. 8. expresses the hope, that if I will not discuss the 
question of slavery with him, in the form he presents it, I 
will " quit denouncing it as a sin." I decline the discussion 
in that form ; but I hope and trust that, w^hile life lasts, I 
may not cease to denounce American slavery as a sin. As 
I regard the subject, to promise to do so w^ould be volun- 
tarily to abjure allegiance to the Lord and Master, and to 
renounce fojrever my hope of heaven. 0. B. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 71 

[From the Record of June 3d.— Editorial.] 

THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN 0. B., AND J. S. 



Our readers have noticed, some with regret, and some 
with delight, the articles in the Weekly Record, by Breth. 
0.' B., and J. S., out of Avhich, discussion of tho vexed 
subject of Slavery, is likely to grow. This was not an- 
ticipated when these articles were commenced, and how far 
they are to be continued we can not now say. We need 
not say to these brethren, that we hope they will treat the 
subject with that dignity and christian forbearance which so 
grave a subject demands. Whether the bodies and souls of 
men for whom Jesus died, may be chattelized, and sold on 
the auction block, in common with horses and mules, with- 
out incurring the displeasure of the great Father of all, as 
a question of no small moment. Still, as thousands of our 
fellow citizens, and even of christians, have been taught 
from infancy to believe this is all right in the eyes of God, 
and the light of the Bible, the subject demands serious, 
scriptural investigation. 

We hope, if the discussion is to go on, that Bro. J. S. 
will cease to even intimate that the north is chargable with 
all the horrors of the southern rebellion, thus indirectly 
justifying the south, in their attempt to pull down our glo- 
rious temple of liberty. Stick to the text, brethren. 



[From the Christian Record of Jync 10th, 1S62.] 

FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



As further proof of the fanaticism of the error into which 
my brother 0. B. has unfortunately fallen, I will note the 
following in his last article. 

" The institutions of marriage and slavery, J. S. regards 
as parallel institutions equally entitled to the respectful 
consideration of a Christian people." 



72 INirtODUCTION. 

I said no such thing ; I meant no such thing ; and no 
such thing is inferable from what I did say. [Supposing 
that he could reflect dispassionately when marriage was the 
subject of consideration ; I used it in lieu of slavery, in 
stating his course as to slavery, to show his evasion, and 
attempt to avoid the discussion of the question at issue, 
whether slavery is sinful or not. I said nothing about the 
two institutions being " equally'"' sacred, or ''equally" en- 
titled to respect ; and nothing of that kind is inferable from 
what I said. 

Again, he says : 

" He reasons in eifect, that the one is entitled to equal 
protection and respect with the otlier ;" and confesses that 
he is " not yet able to look steadily and calmly at it." 

And again, he says : 

" The divine institution of marriage, paralleled and asso- 
ciated with the diabolical institution of chattel slavery is a 
thought too revolting for calm consideration. But they 
are so presented by J. S." ! 

An intellect that is so unhinged as to honestly and in 
good faith, thus misapprehend "vthat is said, and imagine 
that something entirely different is said, is in a very bad 
condition to " think on whatsoever things are true."^ Hence 
a calm consideration and investigation, in "the words of 
truth and soberness,"- of a subject about which that intel- 
lect is so unhinged, I fear is wholly unattainable. 

My brother 0. B. will not " attempt to prove" that '' the 
institution or system of slavery is sin, separate from and in- 
dependent of its effects and consequences, in and upon the 
condition, character and conduct of masters and slaves." 

I understand this to be an admission that the institution 
of slavery is not a sin ; that it is not sin to hold the re- 
lation of master to a slave ; in other words, that it is not 
sin to own a slave. If this is inferring more than the lan- 
guage of 0. B. justifies, let us take it in the language in 
which he utters it — that he is not disposed to atteinpt to 
prove that slavery is sin. 

But he professes to be willing to attempt to prove it, if we 
will couple with it, its effects and consequences, in and upon 
the condition, character and conduct of masters and slaves. 

Here it is at once seen, that, if this course should be tak- 

(1) Phil, iv, 8. (2) Acts xxvi, 25. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 73 

en, our discussion would be, not whether slavery is sinful or 
not, but -^hat are its effects ? its consequences ? and what 
are they in and upon the condition, character and conduct 
of masters and slaves? Judging from the specimens we 
have already had of his proneness to deal in fictions instead 
of facts, that is to deal in fictions instead of dealing in " what- 
soever things are true," we should, at once, differ as to 
what its effects and consequences were, and get into a dis- 
cussion of that, and not of the question. Is slavery sinful ? 
He would insist that certain gross fictions, that those of 
his school have been bruiting abroad for years, are facts, 
and are the effects and consequences of the institution. I 
should deny that they were facts, and also deny that they 
were the effects and consequences of the institution, and 
should call on him to show that they were the effects and 
consequences of the institution, instead of being what ra- 
tional men would say they were, that is, that they were the 
effects and consequences of the prbneliess to sin, and of the 
actual sins, of the masters and slaves. 

I should insist that the character and conduct of Chris- 
iian masters and slaves were as good as the character and 
conduct of other Christians^ even as those of Bro. 0. B. or 
myself; and that the character and conduct of christians do 
not depend upon their state and condition in life, whether it 
be that of masters or slaves, or of those who do not hold that 
relation to any other human being, but upon their "patient 
continuance in well doing," and '■' growth in grace, [favor] 
and in the i^nowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," 
by continuing in, observing, or keeping his word,^ and re- 
quire, him to show the contrary. 

Here, Bro. 0. B., if he should be consistent with his for- 
mer assertions, and with those of his school, would say that 
one could not be a Christian and a slave-holder; that to be a 
Christian and guilty of " the sin of slavery," " the sum of 
all villianies," "the monster iniquity," "the colossal crime," 
and "associated with the diabolical institution of chattel 
slavery," it "is a thought too revolting for calm consid- 
eration." 

This would bring us back to the starting point ; that the 
institution of slavery is a sin. But, Bro. 0. B. is not dis- 

(1) Rom. ii, 7 : 2 Peter, iii, 18 ; John viii, 31, 32. 



74 INTRODUCTION. 

posed to attempt to prove it to be a sin. The result, then, 
would be, that slavery is not a sin ; but according to 0. B., 
some things that slave-holders do, and which, he says, are 
the effects and consequences of slavery, are sins. 

0. B. can not consider slavery in the abstract, but in the 
concrete, if he discusses it. There is no abstract or con- 
crete about it. It is neither compound nor complex. It is 
a simple single relation. If it were proposed to inquire as to 
the sinfulness of adultery, or drunkenness, how strange would 
it sound to hear one of those who proposed to discuss it, 
say, that he could not consider it in the abstract but in the 
concrete, if he discusses it ! and insist upon mixing up ef- 
fects and consequences, either real or supposed, of adultery 
or drunkenness, in the discussion of it, so as to confine it (ac- 
cording to his notion,) to "American" adultery, or " Amer- 
ican" drunkenness ! 

The good word of the Lord does not so speak of persons 
or things. It denounces liars, fornicators, covetous, extor- 
tioners, idolators, drunkards, adulterers, whoremongers, ef- 
feminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, and 
railers, as sinners, without any abstraction or concretion 
about them, or either of them, and does not place slave- 
holders with them, either abstractly or concretely, notwith- 
standing, there then were as many slave-holders, when the 
Lord taught and the apostles wrote, as there were of the 
classes above enumerated. The good word of the Lord also 
denounces iying, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciv- 
iousness, idolatry, witchcraft, liatred^ variance.) emulations, 
wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, [sects] envyings, murder, 
drunkenness, re veilings, bitterness, anger, clariior, evil- 
speaking, malice and blasphemy, as sinful, without abstrac- 
tion or concretion, without designating them as Asiatic, Eu- 
ropean, or American, and does not place slavery among 
them, though it was as rife when that word was written, as 
these vices were, and abounded much more in the human 
family than it does now. If such a crusade against it as 
now exists, is so very essential, why was it not necessary 
for those inspired men to, at least, enumerate it among the 
vices that the good word of the Lord denounces as sinful ? 
Why did not the apostles make the discovery that Bro. 
0. B. has, that failing to denounce it as a sin, " would be 
voluntarily to abjure allegiance to the Lord and Master, 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 75 

and to renounce forever my [their] hope of heaven"? But 
they did not make the discovery, and did not so denounce it; 
and yet Peter and Paul put oiF this tabernacle, not only 
with the hope, but the full assurance of heaven. 

I will here add, also, that the good word of the Lord 
warns Christians, and enjoins upon them, that they should 
none of them " suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an 
evil-doer, or as a busy-body in other men's matters;" but 
that '' if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be 
ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf."^ Suffer- 
ing as a Christian then, is not suffering as a busy-body in 
other men's matters; and the busy-body in other men's 
matters, is ranked with murderers and thieves, by the in- 
spired Peter, just before he put off the tabernacle of his 
body, as the Lord had showed him.^ 

0. B. still insists that there is a court of conscience in 
the Lord's kingdom. I will be under great obligations to 
him, if he will cite me to the passage of the New Testament, 
establishing it ; for I confess that I have not seen it, and I 
think I have seen all that is in the book. There is nothing 
in the Lord's kingdom that is not mentioned in that book, 
that is certain. If it is not mentioned there, it is not in his 
kingdom. 

A few words to my much esteemed and amiable brother, 
E. Goodwin, Editor of the Record. In noticing our arti- 
cles, he says : 

" Whether the bodies and souls of men for whom Jesus 
died, may be chattelized, and sold on the auction block in 
common with horses and mules, without incurring the dis- 
pleasure of the great Father of all, is a question of no small 
moment. Still, as thousands of our fellow citizens, and 
even Christians, have been taught from infimcy to believe 
this all right, in the eyes of God and the light of the Bible, 
the subject demands serious scriptural investigation." 

This shows how great the mischief that railing, evil-speak- 
ing, and evil-surmising has done among us, when it, has 
produced such an effect upon so amiable and intelligent a 
brother, as the Editor of the Record. 

1. The question he states is not involved in the inquiry 
whether slavery is sinful or not. 2. Nobody has been taught 



(1) 1 Pet. iv, 15, 16. (3; 2 Pet. i, 14. 



■tb INTRODUCTION. 

as he states. 8. Christians neither believe nor pi'actice 
such things. 
Again : 

1. The question is not involved ; for slaves (why could 
he not use that term instead of the false periphrasis " bod- 
ies and souls of men, for whom Jesus died " ?) are sold on 
the auction block only in three cases. 1. When the owner 
voluntarily puts them up at auction. 2. When they are 
sold by the sheriff' on execution. '6. When sold by execu- 
tors or administrators. The first, christians do not do, and 
110 others do, except the regular slave dealer ; and he only 
gets the refractory slaves, who have failed to discharge their 
'duty as slaves, as laid down by the apostles in the christian' 
scriptures, and are, I suppose, in the providence of God, 
'thus punished for their sin in that failure. 

The 2d and 3d can not take place where the christian law 
■to " owe no man anything*^^ is kept by the master. In that 
case, there will be no sheriff's sale of his property ; and his 
executors or administrators will deliver his slaves over to 
his heirs, and not put them on the auction stand. So, it is 
the sin of the slave, or of the master, that puts slaves on the 
auction block, and not the institution of slavery. 

Bro. Goodwin, like Bro. 0. B,, puts something that he 
supposes to be the effect and consequence of slavery, for 
slavery, and denounces that, saying it is a question of no 
small moment, when it is really not the question involved. 

2. 3. Such things are not taught in the slave-holding 
communities ; and christians living in those communities, 
neither believe nor practice such things. 

Bro. Goodwin further says: 

" We hope, if the discussion is to go on, that Bro. J. S. 
will cease even to initmate that the North is chargable with 
all the horrors of the Southern rebellion, thus indirectly jus- 
tifying the South in their attempt to pull down our glorious 
temple of liberty." 

I have not even " intimated" that the North was charga- 
ble with all the horrors of our present unhappy and most 
unnecessary civil war. I have made no intimation the one 
way nor the other. I have been endeavoring to show some 
things wherein we of the North have erred in the unfortu- 

(1) Rom xiii, 8. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 77 

nate q.uatrel, because I am writing for Northern readers, 
and addressing the Northern mind. In doing that, it is not 
necessary, nor even proper, to speak of the errors of those of 
the South. When I address the brethren of the South, (if 
I should ever have the opportunity of doing so,) then will 
be the proper time to show the errors into which they have 
fallen. In my opinion, grave errors have been committed, 
and are beins; committed, both North and South : and nei- 
ther " is chargable with all the horrors" of the present dis- 
tress, .People like to have the faults and errors of others 
pointed out, but not their own. The Lord and the apostles, 
however, did not teacli that w^ay. And as my lot is cast in 
the North, my duty is to cast in my mite, to aid us in the 
North to come to the light on the subject. We ought not 
to shun coming to the light of God's truth, lest, perchance, 
our deeds should be reproved. " He that doeth truth Com- 
eth to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that 
they are wrought in God."^ And it is a weak excuse for 
not coming to the light, when it reproves our conduct, to 
say that it will indirectly justify the conduct of somebody 
else. It will not do so ;- but even if it will, '•' let God be 
true, but every m.au a iiar."^ That is what inspiration says 
in the premises. 

May the Lord enable us to come to the light, as He is in 
the light. ' J. S. 

(1) Johniii, 20--21.. 

(2) As evidence that this proposition is true, I will cite what the great British statesman 
Edmund Burke said in the time of our revolution. Speaking of those who were opposed to 
the policy of the government, he said : 

" They have l^een told that their dissent from violent measures is au encouragement to 
rebellion. Men of great presumption and little knowledge will hold a language which is 
contradicted by the whole course of history. General rebellions and revolts of a whole 
people never were encouraged, now or at any time. They are always provoked. But if 
this unheard of doctrine of the encouragement of rebellion were true ; if it were true that the 
assurance of the friendship of numbers in this countrj- toward the colonies could become an 
encouragement to them to break off all connection with it, what is the inference ? Does 
any body seriously maintain that, charged with my share of the public councils, I am 
obliged not to resist projects which I think mischievous, lest men who suffer should be en- 
couraged to resist? The very tendency of such projects to produce rebellion is one of the 
chief reasons against them. Shall tliat reason not 1)e given? Is it then a rule that no man 
in this nation shall open his mouth in favor of the colonies ; shall defend their rights, or com- 
plain of their sufferings ? or when war finally breaks out, no man shall express his desire of 
peace ? Has this been the law of our past, or is it to be the terms of our future connection ? 
Even looking no further than ourselves, can it be true loyalty to any Government, or true 
patriotism toward any country, to degrade their solemn councils into servile drawing- 
rooms, to flatter their pride and passions, rather than to enlighten their reason, and pre- 
vent them from being cautioned against violence, lest others should be encouraged to resis- 
tance ? By such acciuiescence great kings and mighty nations have been undone, and if any 
are at this day in a perilous situation from rejecting truth and listening to flattery, it would 
rather become them to reform the errors under which they suffer, than to reproach those 
viYla forewarn them of their danger."— ^-ar/u's Utter to the sheriff a of Bristol, publUh.- 
ed iJi April, 1777. 

(3) Rom.iii, 3-4. 



78 INTRODUCTION. 



REMARKS. 

As Bro. J. S. has paid his respects, in a very kind and 
respectful manner to the Record, duty and the rules of rec- 
iprocity demand a few remarks from me. Bro. J. S. sup- 
poses that it was the railings, evil speaking and evil sur- 
mizings of others, that led me to say — "Whether the bod- 
ies and souls of men for whom Jesus died, may be chattel- 
ized and sold on the auction block, in common with horses 
and mules, without incurring the displeasure of the great 
Father of all, is a question of no small moment. Still, as 
thousands of our fellow citizens and even christians, have, 
been taught from infancy to believe this all right, in the 
eyes of God and the light of the Bible, the subject demands 
serious, scriptural investigation." 

In this my Bro. is mistaken. Evil surmizing and evil 
speaking does not thus effect me. My remarks were 
prompted by facts. But Bro. J. S. says — " no body has 
been so taught, as he (I) states." What! Nobody taught 
that slaves may be sold on the auction-block in common 
with other property, without incurring the displeasure of 
God ! ! Bro. J. S., " I speak that I know, and testify that 
I have seen." I know that many good and pious men in 
the slaveholding States mourn over this state of things, and 
shed tears at tiie sight of such sales ; but still it is true, 
that thousands, and tens of thousands are taught and there- 
fore believe that the sale of slave-man is just as righteous 
as the sale of a horse or mule. Our good brother thinks I 
should have said " Slaves,'' and not " the souls and bodies 
for whom Jesus died." Did not Jesus die for the slave as 
well as for the master ? If so, my phraseology is correct. 
Even the term sprvant, would sound a little more softly on 
many .ears than the word slave. But this is no reason why 
the naked truth should not be spoken; or, that things should 
not be called by their proper names. I have found a few 
persons who denied that Christ died for Africans, or the 
negro race; but surely this is not Avhat Bro. J. S. means. 
Yet he says, to express the term slaves, by " the souls and 
bodies of men for whom Jesus died," is " a false paraphrase " ! 

But Bro. J. S., admits that slaves are sold on the auction 
block under three classes of circumstances. That admis- 
sion is enough to place the whole institution under the ban 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 79 

of condemnation.^ Bro. J. S. says, slaves can not be sold 
at auction by a sheriff, or admidistrator where the christian 
law, to "owe no man anything," is kept by the master. 
But such sales often become necessary to make equal divis- 
ions of esta.tes. And then that law is not always kept ac- 
cording to the strict letter, even by christians; and thousands 
of slaveholders do not profess to be governed by the law of 
Christ. Good men often become involved so that their 
property fiills into the sheriff's hands. Hence, I conclude 
that any law that places human beings on a level with brute 
property, and subjects them to be thus exposed by the im- 
prudent trading of their master, is an unrighteous law. 

Bro. J. S. denies that he has ever " intimated that the 
North is chargeable with ' all' the horrors of our present un- 
happy and most unnecessary civil war." It was in view of 
the following paragraph that I made the remark to which he 
refers, as found in the 18th number of our weekly : 

" But it has been harped so long [that slavery is a sin] 
that thousands of excellent people have got tjo believe that 
it is true, that it is a sin ; and hence, as they desire to 
eradicate all sin from the earth, they have entered into cru- 
sades against it, increasing in intensity and vigor, till our 
present woful condition exists." 

My conclusion from this was, that Bro. J. S. blamed this 
awful war, with all its horrors, upon the slavery agitation in 
the North, and, indirectly, justified the South in their rebel- 
lion. I am glad, however, that I have given him the occa- 
sion to explain ; and that he now tells us that he did not 
mean to be so understood. That great national evils have 
been committed both North and South, I admit ; but I am 
far from admitting that the course pursued by a few fanat- 
ics in the North who had but little influence either North or 
South, has caused this horrible rebellion. But this is no time 
to inquire who caused the rebellion, 'net the storm be pass- 
ed, and the nation become sober, before we agitate that 
question. 

(1) What a strange notion ! What passage of scripture proves this assertion of broth- 
er Goodwin? 



80 INTRODUCTION. 

[From the Christian Record of June 17th, 1862.] 

FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



Bro. Goodwin: — I regret to be under the necessity to oc- 
cupy more space in the Record, and more of the time and 
attention of its readers, in a discussion with J. S. without 
the prospect of soon reaching the real subject of discussion. 
If J. IS. and myself are to give our views upon the subject 
of slavery, it were time that we began the argument. If 
that is not the purpose, we need not lagouble ourselves, or 
the readers of the Record, with so lengthy a logomachy. I 
suppose, however, that I must still follow J. S. so far as to 
notice briefly some of the contents of his last article. 

J. S. still regards me as having fallen into the " fanaticism 
of error," while I regard him as its willing captive. Which 
of us is the best illustration of that species of fanaticism, is a 
question upon which, as a matter of course, we should differ, 
and upon which the reader will form his own opinion with- 
out reference to ours. 

J. S. complg,ins that I have done him injustice, in my re- 
marks upon his paralleling the institutions of marriage and 
slavery. Some injustice may have been done by those re- 
marks, to his unexpressed sentiments and convictions, but 
I still think I gave a fair construction of the language he 
used. He spoke of both marriage and slavery as simple 
institutions of civil government, and neither assigned to the 
one a higher, or the other a lower rank. I accept his dis- 
claimer of any intention to represent • them as equal, but 
still he has not assigned to them, or to either of them, any 
other rank. In the event of his prosecuting this discus- 
sion, if he does not yet attempt to exalt slavery to the rank 
of a divine institution, I shall be agreeably disappointed. 

In reference to a court of conscience in the Lord's king- 
dom, and the propriety of an agreed or hypothetical (fase 
for the trial of slavery there, I have nothing to retract from 
what I have said upon that subject. To my conception, 
there is a quality, faculty, or power of the mind, which in- 
vestigates and decides upon the moral character of acts 
done or contemplated. It is its province to hear and de- 
termine the case presented, and hence, by no unauthorized 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 81 

figure of speech, it may be called a court. That quality, 
faculty, or power of the mind, I call conscience, and it is so 
called by the common consent of mankind. It tries and 
determines the moral character of acts contemplated, as 
well as of acts done. To do this, the act contemphited is 
in mental contemplation regarded as done, and thus an 
agreed or hypothetical case is made out and submitted to 
the decision of conscience. This J. S. calls fiction, and 
gravely talks of my "proneness to deal in fiction," and 
keeps repeating, for my benefit, the apostolical injunction, 
"think of whatsoever things are true." I claim that I have 
not violated truth in this matter, and that J. S. has sufiScient 
intellect to appreciate that fact. It is unworthy of him, 
and of the subject, to resort to a species of pettifogging, 
for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the readers 
against me, and against such arguments as I may use in 
opposition to chattel slavery. 

But I ought, perhaps, to excuse J. S. for although he 
has long been a citizen of the Lord's kingdom, he has not 
yet learned that there is in that kingdom a court of con- 
science, and doubtingly requests me to " cite to the passage 
of the New Testament establishing it." It would draw me 
from my present purpose to attempt that now; but perhaps 
wdien the matter in liand is disposed of, I may find leisure 
to attend to his request. But for the present, to use an- 
other figure of speech in reference to the conscience, or 
another fiction, if J. S. will so regard it, let me say, that to 
my co]itemplation, the conscience is the Lord's garden in 
the human heart. It has cost him much of labor, much of 
suffering, to make it good, to cleanse, purify, and enlighten 
it, and to render it a fit and proper place of his resort, for 
the purpose of holding communion with the human soul. 
And v.hen, in the cool of life's summer day, he shall come 
to walk in this his garden, happy is the man who, with hum- 
ble boldness, can meet and commune with him there. But 
it is to be feared that, upon such occasions, many other than 
Father Adam will be found holding themselves from his 
presence, not, perhaps, in the shadow of the trees of the 
ancient paradise, but beneath the deeper shadows of those 
specimens of political growth called civil institutions. 

I can not attempt to follow J. S. in all he says upon the 
subject of slavery. His track is too intricate, or at least 



82 • INTRODUCTION. 

diverges too far from my line of thought to induce an effort 
on my part to do so. I will, however, notice some of the 
items. 

J. S. understands me to have admitted, " that the institu- 
tion of slavery is not a sin — that it is not sin to hold the 
relation of master to a slave — in other words, that it is not 
sin to own a slave." I have made no such admission, not 
even in reference to the insfitntion of slavery, contemplated 
in the total exclusion of its incidents and qualities — its ef- 
fects and consequences. If he will revise my remarks,'*he 
will find, that by fair construction, my language has directly 
the opposite meaning. I said, however, that the discussion 
of the moral character of the institution — the simple theory 
of slavery so contemplated — would be unprofitable. I did 
not refer to the relation of a master to a slave, or to the 
claim by one man to own another as slave property. These 
are some of the incidents and qualities of slavery — the ef- 
fects and consequences of the institution. The moral char- 
acter of the relation and of the claim, I have not yet de- 
clined to discuss with J. S. The subject is fully embraced 
in the proposition I have submitted. I hold, that the legal- 
ized relation of the master to the slave is sinful, and that 
the legalized claim of one human being to another as his 
slave, his chattel property, is sin. 

The agitation of the subject of slavery has deeply " vexed 
the righteous soul" of J. S. With or without reason or 
appropriateness, and both in season and out of season, he 
makes hostile demonstrations against those whom he calls 
agitators. Hence, he cites freely, and at random, from por- 
tions of the Holy Scriptures, designating various crimes and 
offences, italicising such of these crimes and offences as he 
regards as applicable to these agitators. The italics are in- 
tended to give them point, and indicate the purpose for 
which the quotations are made. They have no apprecia- 
ble reference to the subject of which he is treating. But 
if I mistake not, these missiles will much more frequently 
light upon his own head than reach the mark at which he 
aims them. He had better reserve his fire, and not waste 
his ammunition, by firing at long range, under circumstan- 
ces that leave his preGumed antagonists ever in doubt, 
whether he is aiming at them. Should he reach the field of 
conflict, he will need all his ammunition then, and still may 



PKELIxMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 83 

•Hnd himself under the necessity of retiring for the want of 
more. At any rate, he shouhl exercise more judgment and 
discretion in the selection and use of his missiles, lest he 
should inflict upon himself the wounds he intends for others. 

J. S. has said, that the institution of slavery is a question 
of political economy — an institution of civil government — 
a civil institution — a State institution — and as such is not 
sinful, and yet he declines to discuss the question of the 
moral character of American slavery, and talks gravely 
about the impropriety of designating slavery as American. 
He thinks it would sound strange, if one who proposed to 
inquire into the sinfulness of adultery, or drunkenness, 
should insist upon confining the discussion to American 
adultery or drunkenness. If adultery and drunkenness 
were institutions established, legalized and protected by 
State laws — if they were institutions of civil government, 
such limitation of discussion in reference to them would 
seem to me appropria4:e. There is, we are told, in the ter- 
ritory of Utah, an institution of adultery, legalized and pro- 
tected by the Utah laws, and there it would be most perti- 
nent and most appropriate to discuss the moral character of 
Utah adultery. 

The agitation of which J. S. complains so bitterly, is and 
has been wholly in reference to Americayi slavery, and the 
claims and conduct of the master to the slaves, as legalized 
and protected by American laws. Of this J. S. is well 
aware, and if disposed to meet the real question at issue, 
he will consent to discuss my proposition, or some other 
one, involving about what is intended to be expressed by it. 
He has submitted no proposition himself, nor has he sug- 
gested any one in tangible form. I therefore conclude that 
he does not intend to discuss the question, but simply seeks 
an opportunity to discharge a few arrows, Parthian like, at 
the advancing antagonists of chattel slavery. Unless his 
next article, should he think proper to furnish another, shall 
be at least some approximation to the point, my impression 
now is, that I shall not attempt to follow him further. 
However, as I have submitted a proposition, and as yet 
have offered no argument to sustain it, I may be disposed, 
with the consent of the editor of the Record^ to make some 
effort, in an article or two, to prove that American slavery 
is sin. But I leave that matter open for further considera- 
tion. 0. B. 



84 INTRODUCTION. 







FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



REPLY OF J. S. TO E. G. 



SO Ills 


vf 


I ^;ol.i 


-)Q 


e«, w! 


til- 


of all, 


, is 



A few remarks are proper in reply t© Bro. Goodwin. 

If any nrian " consent not to^wliolesonie words, he is proud^, 
-^ ^ -'" but doting about questions and strife of words, whereof 
Cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse dis- 
putings, (gallings one of another, marginal reading^ of 
men of corrupt, minds (wholly corrupted in mind, lUw 
Trandaiion^ and destitute of the truth. "^ We are enjoined 
not only to hold fast " sound words," but even ^'the form" 
of them.^ Well might we be so enjoined and commanded, and 
how great heed should we take to observe the injunction 
when we speak of matters pertaining to the Lord, his laws 
and kingdom, may be seen, when we consider that the Lord 
himself gave to his disciples, and through them to us, *' the 
^vor<h w^hich thou [the Father] gavest me."'"' 

Bro. Goodwin said: "Whether the bodies a'hd 
men for whom Jesus died, may be chattelized aih 
the auction block, in common with horses and rau! 
out incurring the displeasure of the Great Father 
a question of no small moment." 

Let us calmly, and in the fear of God, look at this a few 
moments. 

The bodies of slaves are not " chattelized," but they be- 
long to the slaves during their lives, and at their death they 
are returned to the earth, the mother of us all. The houIs 
of the shives are not " chattelized," but they belong to the 
slaves, and to the God and Father of all our spirits. Whafc 
is it, then, about slaves that are "chattelized?" It is their 
services and labor. That is what is chattelized ; that is v/hat 
is bought and sold on the auction block and otherwise ; and 
it is not either the bodies or the souls of men for whom Je- 
sus died that are either chattelized or sold, owned or pos- 
sessed. If the bodies were used for meat, or the skins for 
leather, then it might be said that the bodies were chattel- 
ized. Chattelized, however, is an improper term, because 
it produces ["whereof cometh,"] "strife, railings, evil sur- 

(1) ITim. vi, 3-5. (2) 2 Tim. i, 13. (3) John xvii, 8. 



PRELIxMINARY CORRESPONDENCE, 85 

misings, gallings one of another." But neither the bodies 
of the shaves, nor any portion of them, are ever used as 
property by th>e masters, but they are delivered up to the 
earth. 

Hence, I said, that "the bodies and souls of men for 
whom Jesus died," was a false periphrasis for the word 
slaves. It is false. For "the services and labor of men," 
is the true periphrasis for the word. And the clause "for 
whom Jesus died," is an unnecessary appendage, and, it 
seems to me, is added only to make improper impressions 
upon pious and kind-hearted brethren and sisters, and is a 
random use of words and phrases that christian teachers 
should not indulge in. Bro. Goodwin's labor and services, 
and mine, and all the christian brethren and sisters' labors 
and services, belong to, and are owned by the Lord — so did 
Paul's ; and by looking at 2 Cor. xi. 23-38, we will see what 
great and hard labors and services were exacted of him hy 
the Lord. Having done this, let us reflect a moment, and 
see what we think of using such language as, the body and 
soul of a man for whom Jesus died, five times whipped with 
thirty-nine lashes each time; thrice beaten with rods: once 
stoned; thrice shipvrrecked ; a night and a day in the deep; 
in traveling, often in the perils of the water, of robbers, of 
Jews, of the heathen, in the city, in the wilderness, in the 
sea, and among false brethren; in Aveariness and painful- 
ness, and watchings, often in hunger and thirst, and fast- 
ings, in cold and nakedness ; and besides all these things of 
outward bodily sufferings, the daily mental labor and anxiety 
of the care of all the churches placed on him; and he finally 
put to a violent death by a wicked heathen ; all this exacted 
hy his master. Can this be done ? Can such an institution 
exist "without incurring the displeasure of the Great 
Father of all'"? 

It does look somewhat like both Paul's body and soul 
were " chattelized ;" but they were not. His services, labor 
and sufferings were all of Paul, that the Lord reduced to 
property, when he "captured" him, and "reduced" him to 
his service. But slave- owners only have property in the 
labors and services of their slaves — not in their sufferings, 
nor live^, as the Lord had in Paul, and has in all christians. 

Bro. Goodwin thinks that the admission that slaves (he 
there uses the term) are sold on the auction-block, is enough 



86 , INTRODUCTION. 

to place the whole institution under the ban of condemna- 
tion ; and he concludes that any law allowing it, is an un- 
rirrhteous law. Here we see that it is the laiu that he ob- 
jects to, and not to slavery. Well, as neither the Savior 
nor the apostles ever gave an opinion of the goodness or 
badness of any of the laws, or of any of the kingdoms of 
this world,fI shall refrain from discussing that question in a 
religious discussion, in a religious paper. In a political 
forum, I am, and always have been, ready to do it, but not 
here. J- S. 

June 11, 1862. 



REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.. 

Upon the foregoing from our esteemed Bro. J. S., a few 
remarks may be necessary. I have no disposition to enter 
into a general discussion of the subject of American slavery 
with J. S. or any other person, especially the political phase 
of the subject. Particularly would this be improper on my 
part, while the preliminaries of a 'discussion of that subject, 
between Bro J. S. and another brother, are in course of 
adjustment. I know, too, that this is a very exciting sub- 
ject, 9nd one that is difficult to either oppose or defend, 
without becoming extravagant in the use of terms. 

Bro. J. S. seems to think ^that I have become guilty of 
this extravagance, because I used the terms, "souls and 
bodies of men for whom Jesus died," to express slaves, and 
he gravely informs us, " that the bodies of slaves are not 
chattelized, but they belong to the slaves during their natu- 
ral lives, and at death they are returned to the earth, the 
mother of us all. The souls of the slaves are not chattel- 
ized, but they belong to the slaves, and to the God and 
Father of all our spirits." 

I am inclined to think this is a new definition of slavery, 
formed to suit the occasion. The body and soul of the 
slave belongs to the slave, and the slave's service belongs 
to the masterj Where, then, is the slave? The slave 
owns the body and soul — who is that slave? If the slave 
owns the slave's body, he has a right to use that body as he 
may think proper. Suppose a certain slave should conclude 
to move his body, which belongs to him, from Kentucky to 
Canada, what would the master do or say ? I am inclined 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 87 

to think he would pursue the slave, and, if caught in the 
United States, would compel him to bring that body back by 
the force of the fugitive slave law. In vain might the slave 
claim that the body was his own ; the master would claim 
the man, and all that goes to constitute the man. 

But what is the fact in the case ? Look over the tax-list 
of a slave State, and you will see horses, mules and slaves, 
put down as property, withq^ut any distinction being made 
between the slave man and his service. When a man is put 
up at auction, the cryer does not call for bids on the services 
of the man, but on the man himself. 'Tis true, the pur- 
chaser expects to get service out of the slave, but he buys 
the man in the hope of the service. Just so when he buys 
a horse or mule. He buys the animal for the sake of the 
service he can get out of him. Thus the man and the 
mules are sold in common. Let us hear what Mr. Cobb, 
the great expounder of slave law and defender of Ameri- 
can slavery, says. He says: 

" Of the other great absolute right of a freeman, viz : the 
right of jprivate property, the slave is entirely deprived. 
His person and his time being entirely the property of his 
master, whatever he may accumulate by his labor, or is oth- 
erwise acquired by him, becomes immediately the property 
of the master." 

There is the plain truth in the case, stated by one of the 
ablest defenders of the institution, of the present age. Bro. 
J. S. admits virtually, that Christ died for the souls and 
bodies of slaves ; and that it would be wrong, therefore, to 
chattelize them, and sell them in common with horses and 
mules. Such a thing is too revolting for his moral feelings. 
Hence, he is not willing to admit that any body does it. 
Still he must admit that the master has supreme control 
over the body of the slave. Thus my statement of the case 
is correct, as shown above. Bro. J. S. thinks the phrase, 
" for whom Jesus died," is " an unnecessary appendage." 
I think not. It shows the worth of the person sold. 
Should I say my neighbor killed my horse, the offence 
would appear great; but if I should say, my horse for 
which I paid five hundred dollars, the crime would appear 
still greater. So, to sell a man. seems hard, but when we 
add the man for whom Jesus died, it gives us a more just 
conception of the magnitude of the offence. That the per- 



88 INTRODUCTION. 

son is sold and becomes the property of the purchaser, we 
have proved ; and as it takes both soul and body to make 
the person, then the souls and bodies for whom Jesus died, 
is chattelized and sold. We did not use the phrase to make 
improper impressions upon the minds of the brethren and 
sisters, as our brother seems to suppose. Our object was to 
place the practice in its true color before our readers. I 
know w^e may conceal the enormity of a crime by giving it 
a pretty name ; but, that we may see things as they are, we 
should call them by their proper names. Bro. J. S. don't 
like the name; then let him not defend the tiling. 

What does Bro. J. S. mean by the example of Paul which 
he here introduces? The Lord claimed the services of Paul, 
and thd master claims the services of his slave ; all the dif- 
ference that he makes between the claims of the Lord upon 
Paul, and the claims of the master upon his slave, is, that 
the Lord claimed Paul's life and suiferings, while the master 
only claims the slave's services. But Paul's master re- 
warded him for his toils — do slaveholders reward their slaves 
according to their works ? 

If Bro. J. 8. is unwilling to defend the traffic in human 
flesh, let him say no more in favor of the institution. 



[From the Christian Record of July 17, 1862.] 

FANATICISM OF ERROR. 



Absence from home prevented an earlier notice of the ar- 
ticles of brethren 0. B. and the Editor,' which appeared 
in the Record of the 17th of June. 

Our heavenly Father has been so kind to our fallen and 
sinful race, as not only to provide a way for redeeming, re- 
generating and elevating us from our fallen and ruined 
condition, to a position higher in the scale of existence than 
Adam held before he sinned, but he has, by and through the 
Lord, instructed us, and revealed to us his will in the prem- 
ises, and what he requires of us. He has not only revealed 
in his good word, what he requires of us, but, to prevent 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 89 

any mistake or misapprehension, he has, in his word, defined 
most of the tilings that it is important for us to knoiv to un- 
derstand his commands to us, and our duty a? members of 
the Lord's kingdom in this world. And we are commanded 
to hohl fast to sound words — wholesome words — in speak- 
ing of the Lord, his laws, and the matters pertaining and 
relating to his kingdom ; and we are explicitly told that 
those who will not consent to wholesome words, the words 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, are proud, knowing nothing, &c. 
Hence, my objections to words and phrases used by brother 
0. B. and the Editor, are not because they are " revolting 
to my moral feelings," nor because I " don't like them/^ 
but because they are untrue, unsound, and unwholesome. 
Neither our "moral feelings," or "sensibilities," nor our 
" consciences," are tests of truth in ascertaining the Lord's 
will ; but the Scriptures given by inspiration are the tests ; 
and they " thoroughly furnish the man of God to every 
good work," and give him " instruction in righteousness," 
that he " may be perfect."^ 

In the good word of the Lord, sin is defined ; righteous- 
ness is defined ; and slavery is defined. 

Si7i is doing what is forbidden, or failing to do what is 
commanded. 

Right eousness^ is doing what is commanded. 

Slavery, like many other things, is neither sinful nor right- 
eous ; hence, brother 0. B. need not be alarmed lest I 
should " attempt to exalt slavery to the rank of a Divine 
institution." I here simpily state these things without ad- 
ducing the proofs. I will do it when proper. 

Slavery, is obedience to some person or thing. 

In proof of this, I adduce the following passages of Scrip- 
ture, quoting each as in the common version, in Wesley's 
Translation, and in tlio New Translation, published by Bro. 
Campbell. 

1. To whom you yield yourselves servants (slaves) to 
obey, his servants (slaves) ye are to whom ye obey.- — Com- 
mon Version. 

Wesley^s is the same, except that to before whom is omit- 
ted in the last clause. 

To whom ye present yourselves servants, (slaves) hy ooe- 

(1) 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17. (2) Kom. vi, 16. 



90 INTRODUCTION. 

dience, his servants (slaves) you are whom you thus obey. — 
JUiew Translation. 

2. For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he 
'brought into bondage.^ — Coin. Vers. 

For by whom a man is overcome, by him is he also 
brought into slavery. — Wesley. 

For every one is enslaved by that which overcomes him. 
— Netv Trans. 

3. Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (slave) of 
sin.^ — Com. Yers. 

He that committeth sin is the slave of sin. — Wesley. 

Whosoever commits sin is the slave of sin. — New Trans. 

The Lord, while here, was a slave and a master, and his 
slaves were his brethren. 

He took upon himself the form of a servant, (slave) and 
being found in that form, he became a slave by humbling 
himself and becoming ohedierit. He became obedient to his 
Father unto death, even the ignnominious and painful death 
of the Cross." " Ye call me Master and Lord : and ye say 
well ; for so I am."'' " One is your Master, even Christ.''^ 
" Whosover shall do the will of my Father, is my brother.''^ 
*' Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these, 
my brethren," &c.'^ 

The Lord, then, while here, was a slave ; he was also 
then, and now is, a Master, and a master too over his breth- 
ren. He occupied both positions in the relation of master 
and slave. Yet he was without sin.* He neither sinned 
by being a slave, nor by being a master. 

I state this that Bro. Goodwin may see what I mean by 
this example; inasmuch as he inquires what I meant by the 
•example of Paul, in my last. The Lord was a Master to 
Paul, and Paul was his slave ; and I showed what great la- 
bor, services and sufferings the Lord exacted of Paul, much 
worse than selling his services and labor upon the " auction 
block," to a cotton or sugar planter, would have been ; and 
that this was done by the Lord, " without incurring the dis- 
pleasure of the great Father of all." 

Yet brother Goodwin insists that the definition I gave of 
slavery in my last is a new definition, though as old as the 

(1) 2 Pet. ii, 19. (*) John xiii, 13. (7) Matt, xxv, 40. 

(2) John viii, 34. (5) Matt, xxiii, 8, 10. (8) Heb. iv, 15; IJohn iii, 5. 

(3) Phil, ii, r, 8. (6) Matt, xii, 50. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 91 

apostolic writings; and he quotes Mr. Cobb. I respectfully 
insist that the good word of the Lord is more reliable than 
the word of Mr. Cobb, though he may be a ''great expounder 
of slave law." " A greater than Solomon " is the authority 
that I respectfully beg leave to submit to, myself. Others, 
of course, will decide and act for themselves, as to which 
authority they will accept, as we each have to account sep- 
arately for himself, and not for another. Obedience is 
slavery, and overcoming is mastery, according to that author- 
ity which is greater than Solomon. 

Brother Goodwin says : 

"If Bro. J, S. is unwilling to defend the traffic in human 
flesh, let him say no more in favor of the institution" of 
slavery. 

Here " traffic in human flesh," and " the institution of 
slavery," are used as convertible phrases, meaning exactly 
the same thing. And I suppose that he thinks that this is 
a correct definition, and that he is using " sound words, 
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

Is not traffic in hog flesh, cattle flesh and sheep flesh, re- 
spectively, traffic in pork, beef and mutton, slaughtered and 
ready for market? It certainly is. Is the institution of 
slavery traffic in the flesh of slaves, slaughtered and ready 
for market in the butcher's stall ? What a. monstrous use 
of words I what an abuse of words ! and in a religious dis- 
cussion in a religious paper ! ! 

Thus miscalling things, and misrepresenting the institu- 
tution of slavery, has been, and is, a principal means used 
to mislead the public mind of the brotherhood upon the 
subject. And the principal thii?g to do, to disabuse the 
public mind, and let in the light of divine truth, by which 
we can look at things and see them as they are, is to cor- 
rect this reckless and improper mode of expression. 

" Persons held to service or labor," are to be given up 
and returned back, says the Constitution of the United 
States.^ The Constitution gives the same definition of 
slavery that the inspired writers do. Held to service and 
labor is the language ; that is, held to serve and labor for 
the master — not held that the master may traffic in their 
flesh in the butcher's stall. In the meantime, the bodies 

(1) Const, art. iv, $ 2. 



92 INTRODUCTION. 

and souls of the slaves are as much theirs, as those of the 
masters are theirs. And the fact that the bodies of the 
slaves are the slave's bodies, while their services and labor 
belong to their masters, no more entitles the slave " to use 
that body as he may think proper" in going to Canada or 
otherwheres, so as to deprive the master of the labor and 
services of the slave, than brother Goodwin is entitled to 
use his body as he may think proper, by becoming a thief, 
a robber, or keeping a doggery, or a brothel, and so deprive 
the Lord and the christian brotherhood of his labor and 
services as a christian preacher and editor. And will brother 
Goodwin say, that, as this is so, his body and soul do not 
belong to him? I apprehend not; and yet it can be as 
truly said of him as of any Kentucky slave. Would he say 
that he was chattelized ; that his flesh was trafficked in ? I 
apprehend not. Would he, instead of saying as the ancient 
and inspired slaves of the Lord did — Paul or Peter, a slave 
of Jesus Christ, &c. — say, the body and soul of one Elijah 
Goodwin, for whom Jesus died, chattelized by Christ, &c. 
I am certain that brother Goodwin would not use such lan- 
guage. He says that he did not use the phrase "for whom 
Jesus died," to make an improper impression. If not, and he 
only wanted to use a proper phrase descriptive of the per- 
son, why did he not use the phrase, "who die in Adam?"^ 
That is equally true with the other, and would have placed 
" the practice in its true colors before our readers," as much 
as the other did — yea, and more ; for there is a mawkish, 
morbid condition of the public mind at present on the sub- 
ject, created by long "harping," that makes such a use of 
the phrase produce an improper impression at the present 
time. The " thing " brother Goodwin speaks of, I do not 
" defend." I object to the name he gives it, not because I 
dislike it, but because it is untrue, and contrary to the 
directions given us in the good word of the Lord as to the 
use of tvoi^ds, and the contemplation of tJiings. But, with 
him I say, "that we may see things as they are, v^e should 
call them by their proper names." And this is what I am 
trying to get him to do. 

Brother Goodwin says, "Paul's Master rewarded him for 
his toils — do slaveholders reward their slaves according to 
their works ? " 

(1) 1 Cor. XV. 22. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. Ud 

If they do not, their sin is in failing to discharge their 
duty as masters to their slaves, as laid down in the christian 
Scriptures, and not in owning the slaves. Masters, as well 
as fathers, have great responsibilities resting upon them. I 
am opposed to the institution of slavery as a question of 
political economy; and, were that out of the way, and I 
lived where the institution existed, I should not assume the 
relation of master. I have a wife and eight living children, 
which gives me full as much responsibility, as a husband 
and father, as I want to have to bear, v/ithout adding to it 
the responsibility, as a master, of one or more slaves. But 
because Paul and all the christians have a good Master in 
the Lord, while some masters of slaves are " forward," and 
sin greatly in their conduct toward their slaves, that's being 
so, neither proves the one slavery righteous, nor the other 
slavery sinful. It only proves the one master " perfect," 
and the other a great scamp (if I may use the term.) The 
Lord was made perfect through the suffering he endured 
while a slave, and as a slave.* Does brother Goodwin know 
how much nearer perfect the slaves of the United States are 
than the same race is in Africa, whence they came?^ Does 
he know why the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, though 
they were the elect people of God ? Does he know why the 
Lord humbled himself and became obedient (that is, a slave) 
unto death, even the death of the Cross, to make him per- 
fect through sufferings? If he does not — if these are 
" deep things of (Jod,"^ that he can't fathom any more than 
I can, (and I confess I can't) let him not, on that account, 
berate his and my brethren who live in the slave States, 
and their institutions and domestic relations, and call them 
hard names unwarranted, and even condemned by the 

(1) Heb. ii, 10; and v, 8, 9. 

(2) That the reader may see the condition of the negro race in Africa, and compare it 
with the condition of the negro race in the slave States of this Union, I append the follow- 
ing: 

Seven Thousand Negroes Butchered.— The West African HercUd publishes statements 
of the horrible massacres reeently committed by his ebony Highness, the King of Dahomey. 
Several persons agree in stating that the number of negroes slain on the occasion was esti- 
mated at 2,000, but another correspondent gives the number at 7,000. He says he was pres- 
ent by compulsion, and that the bh)od swept past him like a flood into a large reservoir. 
Another gentlemen, referring to these inhuman butcheries, says : "I assure you, it made 
me quite sick, and at the same time I felt stunned. The poor wretches met death with per- 
fect indifference." 

(3) ICor. ii, 10; and Rom. xi, 33. Because God's judgments or determinations as to 
the negroes, are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out, the abolitionists essay to take 
the matter into their own hands, and undertake to manage it for him. 



94 INTRODUCTION. 

Scriptures, and thereby stir up wrath, envy, strife, railing, 
evil surmising, and gallings one of another. 

Whatever brother 0. B.'s " conception " may be as to the 
quality, faculty or power of the mind, and his system of 
philosophy as to conscience, and his "figures" about gar- 
dens, and his philosophy thereon, I respectfully beg to be 
excused from considering them. For the Lord has warned 
me to " beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy 
and vain deceit, after the traditions [teachings] of men," and 
not after the teachings of Christ ;^ and as he declines to 
cite me the passage of Scripture establishing the court of 
conscience in the Lord's kingdom, I decline to have any- 
thing to do with his philosophy, in a religious inquiry after 
the truth. 

He still insists that legalizing slavery and adultery makes 
them sinful, and that the *' legalized claim of one human 
being to another is sin." Does the legalizing of either of 
these, by human governments, make it a sin, when, if it 
were not legalized, it would not be a sin? Slavery is not 
legalized in Indiana, but it is in Kentucky. Are we to un- 
derstand him, that to hold a slave in Kentucky, by the laws 
thereof, is sin ; but not so if a slave is held in Indiana, for 
it is not legalized here ? If this is not what he means, why 
does he talk so much about legalized slavery? It is appar- 
ent that he wants to discuss, not slavery, but the laivs of the 
slave States. That is, he wants to enter into a christian (?) 
discussion of the things of the kingdoms of this world — a 
thing that neither the Lord nor the apostles did, and a 
thing that they forbid christians to do! He says, as adul- 
tery is legalized and protected in Utah, there it would be 
most pertinent and most appropriate to discuss the moral 
character of Utah adultery. Query : Did legalizing it make 
it either more or less sinful ? and is Utah adultery more or 
less sinful than Indiana adultery? Will he answer? 
Query 2 : As slavery is not legalized in Indiana, is it " most 
pertinent and appropriate to discuss the moral character of" 
Kentucky slavery here ? and if we do, do we not become 
busy-bodies in other men's matters? 

Brother 0. B. says I have submitted no proposition, nor 
suggested any one in a tangible form. The reader, by 

(1) Col. ii, 8. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 95 

looking back, can see what weight this is entitled to. I 
have stated repeatedly the proposition, and in a postscript 
to my article in the Record of May 27th,^ I stated that, if 
0. B. or A. R. B., or any of that school of opinion, would 
take the affirmative of it, I would discuss it. To stop all 
cavil, I will state it in form. Slavery is sinful. Slavery is 
sin. Is slavery sinful? Is slavery sin. It is stated here 
four ways. I take the negative of each of them. Will 0. 
B. affirm any of them? If he will, let him say so. If he 
will not, let him quit denouncing it as a sin. And let him 
quit denouncing it in words, when, what he supposes to be 
its effects, an<l, the laws of the slave States, is what he 
means by the denunciation. Let him not say one thing and 
mean another. Political questions (and questions in rela- 
tion to the laws of the slave States, are political questions) 
should not be discussed in the christian congregation, nor in 
a christian paper. The political forum is the place to dis- 
cuss them. And it is, in that forum, "most pertinent and 
appropriate" for us of Indiana to discuss Indiana laws, and 
leave the citizens of Kentucky and other slave States to 
discuss the laws of their States respectively. 



J. S. 



June 2Sd, 186: 



REMARKS ON BRO. J. S.'S ARTICLE. 

In another colum will be seen an article from Bro. J. S. 
most of which is intended to be a reply to my response to 
his former article. I will not enter into any lengthy reply 
to this response, as the subject referred to is in the hands 
of Bro. 0. B., who will reply in his own way. 

What unexpected turns matters will sometimes take !' 
When Bro. A. R. B.'s article on " The Fanaticism of Error" 
was published in the Record, neither he nor I had any idea 
that it was going to lead to a discussion of the question of 
American slavery. Nor did I suppose that my friendly 
hint to Bro. O. B. and J. S., in reference to the manner in 
which the discussion should be conducted, was going to in- 
volve me in the discussion. 

I can not see the propriety of illustrating American 

(1) Ante, p. 66. 



96 INTRODUCTION. 

slavery by the obedience of Christ to his heavenly Father, 
nor by the subjection of Paul, Peter, and other christians, 
to the will of Christ. The claims of Christ upon the ser- 
vice of his people, and the claims of masters upon their 
slaves rest on very different principles, which Bro. J. S. 
will see by consulting an editorial in the weekly Record for 
June the 17th, on '' The Claims of Christ." The claims of 
Christ rest upon the following considerations: 

1. ^' All things were made by him and for him." 

2. He " upholdeth all things by the word of his power." 

3. He died for all, that they who live should not live unto 
themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again. 

Now, if the slaveholder can establish his claims to his 
slave on such a basis as this — if he made them and upholds 
them by the word of his power, and if he has redeemed 
them by his own blood, then I have no more to say against 
the institution of American slavery ; if he can not, then 
Bro. J. S.'s comparison has no bearing on the subject, but, 
in my humble opinion, approaches very near to the profane. 
But I forbear. 



[From the Christian Record of July 15th, 1862.] 

REPLY TO J. S. 



If an apology were necessary for my not having sooner 
noticed the article of J. S., published in the Record of the 
1st inst., I could find one in the fact that my time has been 
too much occupied to attend to this matter. It may, how- 
ever, be thought more necessary for me to apologize for 
noticing the article at all, than for not having done so 
sooner. I feel that a discussion without a proposition, and 
apparently without a purpose, desultory and rambling as 
ours is, can hardly be regarded as profitable by the readers 
of the Record. And yet, I am disposed to believe, that 
the articles of J. S. are better calculated, than anything 
I can say, to defeat the cause which he is attempting to sus- 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 97 

tain, and I am therefore content to lead him on still further 
in the discussion. 

J. S. has undertaken the defense of slavery, and the 
pressing necessities of the argument have driven him to the 
irreverent, and, to my apprehension, the blasphemous asser- 
tion that the Lord Jesus was himself a slave. J. S. is a 
bold man, and does not hesitate to accept and avow the ulti- 
mate of his own vicious reasonings. 

He has given us an entirely new and strange definition 
of the term slavery — a definition at war with the common 
use and common understanding of the meaning of the term, 
and not to be found either in the lexicons, or in the laws and 
judicial decisions upon the subject of slavery. As defined 
by^J. S., "obedience is slavery," and to prove the correct- 
ness of this definition, he cites sundry passages from Holy 
Writ, into which he takes the fearful responsibility of inter- 
polating very freely and frequently his favorite word. 
Without such interpolations, the passages will not answer 
his purpose, or show that they have any connection with 
the subject. If we allow his interpolations, and admit the 
correctness of his definition — if obedience is slavery — the 
the passages he has cited proves that obedience is sometimes 
sinful, and sometimes righteous ; that its moral character 
depends upon the question whether it be rendered to God 
or to Satan — to the Lord or to the Adversary. And in so 
far as it is proved sinful, the proposition that slavery is sin- 
ful, is proved by J. S. himself. 

But this is far from the question at issue between J. S. 
and myself. We are not discussing, or at least I am not 
disposed to discuss the question of the moral character of 
obedience or service in the abstract, and I shall have no 
controversy with L S. upon the question in that shape. 

The words slave and slavery are of very common use, es- 
pecially in American society, and they have admitted and 
well established meanings in common parlance. They are 
defined in the lexicons, and also in the laws and judicial de- 
cisions of , the slave States. J. S. has denounced, in the 
bitterest terms, those whom he calls abolitionists and agita- 
tors of the subject of slavery, and he knows full well, that 
there never has been any agitation of the subject of slavery 
in the sense in which he now professes to use the term. 
The whole controversy has been, and is, in reference to 



98 INTRODUCTION. 

slavery, as that word is used and understood in popular 
language, and as it exists in American society, under the 
sanction and protection of the laws of the slave States. 
The effort to remove the question entirely from the admit- 
ted field of controversy, by giving a forced and hitherto un- 
heard of definition to a word having so clear and definite a 
meaning, is, as it seems to me, a backing out of the contro- 
versy which he has himself challenged and provoked. If 
he will not defend American slavery, it would be much for 
his credit to say frankly and honestly, that he regards it as 
indefensible, and not resort to the subterfuge and evr:sion 
of new and unrecognized definitions to cover his withdiawal 
from the field. But if he wishes to defend slavery, a?> that 
word is used and understood in popular language, and as it 
exists in American society, under the sanction and protec- 
tion of the laws of the slave States, I would give liim the 
opportunity to do so. If, however, it is something else, 
which he may term slavery, which he purposes to defend, 
and especially if that something else is construed to ( 'a- 
brace the willing service, and obedience of man to ids 
Maker, and of the christian to his Lord, I cjju certmnly 
have no controversy with him upon that subject. 

Defining slavery as above, I affirnn the proposition that 
" Slavery is sinful.'' This is the form suggested by J. S., 
and of course he will not object to it. What I may have to 
say upon the proposition will be directed to the considera- 
tion of the moral character of xVmerican slavery, referring, 
if at all, to servitude of other character, simply for the pur- 
pose of argument or illustration. J. S., of course, will 
choose his own manner of argument, and may occupy a 
field as extensive or as limited as he pleases. I shall not 
feel bound to follow him any farther than I may think it 
necessary to do so to establish the proposition, so far as it 
relates to American slavery. The proposition that " slavery 
is sinful," embraces the proposition that "slavery, as it ex- 
ists in American society, under and by virtue of the laws of 
the slaveholding States, is sinful," and if I choose to make 
my own remarks, specially applicable to the latter form of 
the proposition, J. S. can not complain, as 1 am willing to 
allow him the full latitude of the other form. 

It is not true that I have insisted, " that legalizing slavery 
and adultery makes them sinful." J. S. must have been 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 99 

aware of his perversion of my language, when he made 
that statement. The idea which I intended to present, and 
which, I think, is clearly apparent to every honest and in- 
telligent reader, is, that the legalizing of either slavery or 
adultety does not change its moral character, or purge it of 
its native sinfulness. Although legalized and protected by 
the laws and usages of civil communities, slavery and adul- 
tery are yet sins against God and against humanity. This 
is certainly comprehensible to every one to whom the Great 
Father has furnished an ordinary share of brains, and I do 
not suspect J. S. of deficiency in this particular. 

There are other matters in the article of J. S. which it 
may be proper to notice in their proper place. They will 
probably again be presented should this discussion proceed, 
and may then require some attention. I therefore pass 
them now. * 

To escape this perpetual moving in a circle, or, perhaps, 
I should rather say, this rambling and purposeless discus- 
sion with .). S.,I will introduce here one argument to prove 
the proposition, that "slavery is sinful." If J. S. chooses 
to reply, I hope that he will attempt the refutation of this 
argument. 

" For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our 
heart and knoweth all things." 1 Jonn iii, 20. 

Above and before all logical reasonings, the intuitions of 
man's moral nature assert the sinfulness of slavery. To 
these, to the enlightened christian conscience, to the moral 
convictions of the human heart in communion with God our 
heavenly Father, and in fellowship, and sympathy with Je- 
sus the Lord, I appeal, as my first and best evidence upon 
this issue. Whatever else I may say, however elaborate 
may be the further argument, upon this intuitive perception 
of tiie right, and conviction of the wrong, in the heart, en- 
lightened by God's word, and humanized by his love, I rely 
most confidently to sustain the proposition. 

Let me briefly state this argument. The love of liberty, 
the desire for personal freedom, is the strongest feeling in 
the human breast. It is the universal, all pervading senti- 
ment of humanity. Probably no individual of the human 
family can be found who does not desire liberty above all 
other earthly good. Each one feels that he has a right to 
himself — to the control of his own actions, and to the en- 



100 INTRODUCTION. 

joyment of the fruits of his own labor, against the claim of 
any and all other human beings. The fiercest soldiers of 
the most unprincipled despotism are led to the battle-field 
by the war-cry of liberty, and in the fond delusion that 
they are fighting for this right to personal freedom. So 
highly is this boon prized by all men, that the very words, 
which are used to express it in human language, are chosen 
by inspiration to represent tho highest joys of the christian 
state, on earth and in heaven. Hence the following and 
innumerable other similar expressions in the word of God: 
'< The glorious liberty of the children of God ;" " The truth 
shall make you free;'' " If the son shall make you free, you 
shall be free indeed f^ "But Jerusalem which is above is 
free;'' " Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ 
has made u& free.'' It is possible that those terms are here 
ysed in a more literal sense than many are willing to admit, 
but if we regard them as figuratively used, for the purpose 
of presenting to the mind the fullest and most correct ideas 
of the joys of the christian state here and hereafter, which 
can be communicated in human language, such use of them 
proves that liberty — personal freedom — is regarded as the 
greatest and highest blessing among men. I may venture 
to affirm, that of all the human family, there probably can 
not be found one individual, whatever may be his condition 
and circumstances in life, who is willing to be enslaved — to 
be made the property and subject to the absolute control of 
any other human being. We all desire that others should 
yield to us the right, and leave us in the enjoyment of per- 
sonal freedom. 

The Master has commanded that " all things whatsover 
you would that men should do to you, do you even so to 
them." Hence, desiring liberty ourselves, and wishing 
above all else, that our personal freedom may not be taken 
away from us, we are forbidden, by this express command 
of the Lord Jesus, to enslave, or attempt to enslave others. 
In the light of this divine command, no man may, without 
sin, become a master, or owner of another, who would not 
himself be willing to become the slave and property of his 
fellow man. This argument appeals to the conscience of 
every christian, and clearly ynd conclusively fixes the guilt 
of sin upon American slavery. Hence, I say, that the in- 
tuitions of man's moral nature, in the light of the divine 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 101 

law, and under the promptings of an enlightened christian 
conscience, assert with deep earnestness the truth of the 
proposition, that " slavery is sin." 

0. B. 



[From the Christian Record of July 29th, 1S62.] 

DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, 



Brother 0. B has at last agreed to affirm that Slavery is 
sinful, and to undertake to prove it. 

As I have agreed to discuss it with him on equal terms, 
if he would take the affirmative of it, it may now be under- 
stood as settled, that there is to be a discussion of that 
proposition. 

It is true that he puts a " defining slavery " with his 
agreeing to affirm the proposition ; but does not make that 
defining a part of the proposition ; hence, I am not to be 
understood as accepting his " defining slavery " as the 
proper definition of it. Should he insist upon his definition, 
in the discussion, and so place himself on the record therein, 
I will then attend to it. 

In order to arrange the equal terms upon vdiich the dis- 
cussion is to proceed, I propose for his consideration the 



following 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 



Projjosition — Slavery is sinful. 
O.B. affirms; J. S. denies. 

RULES OF THE DISCUSSION. 

1. Each party is to have equal space, say two columns, 
of the Christian Record, to each number ; any excess or 
deficiency of space in one or more numbers shall be allowed 
for in subsequent ones, so as to make the whole space occu- 
pied by the parties equal. 

2. Each party shall have ten numbers, 0. B. opening and 
J. S. replying, and so on, until the numbers shall be com- 
pleted on each side. 



102 INTRODUCTION. 

3. When the discussion shall be completed, it shall be 
published in book form, inserting these preceding articles 
as an introduction, at the joint expense of the parties, each 
having an equal voice in the publication, if the parties shall 
then be willing to so publish it ; but if either shall decline 
to so publish it, the other shall have the right to do so at 
his own expense. 

These terms being equal and fliir, I suppose he will ac- 
cept them. If so, he may proceed at once to open the dis- 
cussion with number one of his articles. If he wants any 
modification of the rules, let him state it for ray considera- 
tion. I will agree to any terms that are equal and fair. 

Having disposed of this preliminary business matter, I 
will now notice what he says in his last article. 

He says : "J. S. has undertaken the defence of slavery," 
&c. 0. B. afiirms that slavery is sinful ; I deny it. Instead 
of saying that I deny that slavery is sinful, he says that I 
have undertaken the defence of slavery ! Let us look at 
this manner of speaking, using it in relation to another 
subject about which our reasons and intellects are not be- 
clouded. 0. B. says ISTapoleon was a base hypocrite. I 
deny it. Then 0. B. says : " J. S. has undertaken the de- 
fence of Napoleon! his Russian campaign, his overturning 
the free government of France and all," when I had only 
denied his charge that J^apoleon was a hypocrite. 

In searching after truth, we should speak of things truly. 

He says : " J. S. has denounced, in the bitterest terms, 
those whom he calls abolitionists and agitators of the sub- 
ject of slavery." I do not use bitter terms. The reader 
will please look back and see whether he can find them. 

0. B. introduces " one argument to prove the proposi- 
tion that slavery is sinful," and it is this : " The intuitions 
of man's moral nature assert the sinfulness of slavery ;" 
and he says that this is his *' first and hest evidence upon 
this issue." 

Well, this is his first, and, with him, I think it is his best ; 
and it is no argument nor evidence at all. For the intui- 
tions of man's moral nature are not tests of sin and right- 
eousness — tests of truth. It is the spirit of truth that 
guides us into truth ;^ and it is not our intuitions, nor any- 

(1) John xvi, 13. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 103 

thing that pertains to us, that we are to take or follow as a 
guide to the truth. And this spirit of truth guides us to 
the truth, by taking the things of the Lord and showing 
them to us,^ in and by the word of inspiration, which is 
the vrord of God ; and his word is truth." Hence, what the 
spirit of truth shows to us of the things of the Lord, is 
properly called by inspiration " the knowledge of the Lord," 
and is the only source of knowledge that we have. All 
else is "imagination," in which men become " vain," and 
get their " foolish hearts " " darkenened." " Professing 
themselves to be wise they become fools.'"^ They walk "in 
the vanity of their mind," as Gentiles walk, and not as 
christians walk, "having their undersiandi?ig dRvkened^ be- 
ing alienated from the life of God through the ignorance 
that is in them."'^ But christians do not "war after the 
flesh ;" that is, in this Gentile and human manner of war- 
ring for the truth ; they war " casting down imagmations 
(reasonings, marginal reading^) and everything that exalteth 
itself against the knowledge of God, [the knowledge God 
has revealed to us,] and bringing into captivity every 
thought to the obedience of Christ," to the word of God — 
the truth of God.'^ 

Li briefly stating that first and best argument, he says : 
" The love of liberty, the desire of personal freedom, is the 
strongest feeling in the human breast," This is contradicted 
by the whole history of the human race, as well as by in- 
spiration, both of which prove that lust — the love of plea- 
sure and enjoyment — is the strongest feeling in the human 
breast. 

He quotes as a text for this first best argument, 1 John 
iii, 20 : " For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than 
our heart, and knoweth all things-" This is a divinely in- 
spired assurance to us, that, if we are conscious ourselves, 
that we have disobeyed, or are disobeying God, by doing 
what he has forbidden us to do, or by failing to do what he 
has commanded us to do, that God is greater than our hearts, 
our own perception and consciousness of the fact, and 
knows all things, and herce, knows that we have disobeyed, 
or are disobeying. This being what that passage says, 
brother 0. B., by quoting it to prove slavery sinful, says: 

(1) John xvi, 15. (3) Rom.i, 21, 22. (5) 2 Cor. x, 3-5. 

(2) John xvii, IT. (4) Eph, iv, 11, 18. 



104 INTRODUCTION. 

" Because, when we are conscious ourselves of disobedience, 
we may be assured that God knows it ; therefore, slavery is 
sinful f" What logic ! If his sense of the passage be the 
true sense, the next verse must be taken in the same sense. 
It reads : " Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then 
have we confidence tow^ard God." And as the slaveholders' 
hearts condemn them not for holding slaves, they properly 
have confidence toward God, and it is all right with them. 
And as all idolaters' and anti-christians' hearts condemn 
them not, they may have confidence toward God that all is 
right. But the truth of God is, that sin and righteousness, 
ri<>-ht and wrong, are not thus tested, measured and ascer- 
tained. The word of the Lord is the test and measure. 
" The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in 
the last day,"^ and not his heart, nor his conscience, nor his 
intuition, nor his anything else, shall judge him, either 0. 
B., myself, or the slaveholder. Sin and righteousness are 
not only thus tested and measured by the word of the Lord, 
and we judged by it at the last day, but in this life, if we 
live according to the will of God, we live, not by our intui- 
tions, our hearts, our consciences, our moral feelings, nor 
our sensibilities, "but by every word that proceeds out of 
the mouth of God."^ 

Brother 0. B. hoped I would attempt a refutation of this 
his first best argument. The reader will see that I have at- 
tempted it, and Avill determine for himself w^hether I have 
succeeded in the attempt. 

He quotes the "golden rule." This does not prove 
slavery sinful ; but it is so much relied upon by those who 
'a^^ree with Bro. 0. B., I will defer its consideration until it 
takes its regular place in the discussion, only saying now, 
for his and their benefit and consideration, that the phrase, 
" in like circumstances," which was interpolated into it in 
the catechisms and school-books I used to see when a boy, 
has to be interpolated into it to give it the sense, bearing 
and application he and they give it. 

J. b. 

July 21sf, 1862. 



(1) John xii, 43. (2) Matt, iv, 4; Deut. viii, 3. 



PRELIMINARY CORRESPONDENCE. 105 

[Editorial in the Christian Record of July 29lh, 1862.] 

THE DISCUSSION. 

. Our readers will learn from the article of Bro. J. S. in 
this issue, that the discussion of the moral character of 
slavery is about to proceed. With this some are very 
much delighted, while others are fearful it will result in evil. 
To all such we would say, be not uneasy; these brethren 
are among our old, well tried and experienced brethren ; 
they have passed the age of fiery youth; they both belong 
to the legal profession, and of course know how^ to conduct 
a discussion. This may not be the most favorable time for 
such a discussion, still, I am inclined to the opinion, that, 
if properly conducted, it will result in good. We have 
just received a private communication from Bro. J. S. from, 
which we take the followinn; : 

"Bro. Goodwin: — May we all be able to come to the 
knowledge of the truth; I. know I want nothing else; and 
if I am in error, I hope to be shown it, and for which I 
will be thankful. Being of the opinion that the error is on 
the other side, and that much mischief has been done, and 
is being done, by that error, is the reason why I feel it my 
imperative duty to cast in my humble mite to enable us all 
to come to the knowledge of the truth. I honestly believe 
we all want to find the truth, and pursue it. I know it to 
be the duty of all to do that; and as some of us are wrong, 
it is the duty of all of us to try to find where that wrong 
is, that those of us who are in error may amend our ways." 

This breathes the right spirit, and expresses a good rea- 
son for the discussion. While brethren discuss points of 
ditference for the sake of learning the truth, and not merely 
for the sake of the mastery in argument, good will result 
from the effort. That this may be the result of this iaves- 
tigation, is my prayer. 

There is one rule proposed by Bro. J. S. to which, as the 
proprietor of the paper, I have a right to object, namely, 
that when one of the parties fail to fill two columns with an 
article, he shall make up the deficit in a subsequent number. 
This might lead to an occasional article of too great length. 
The other rules proposed by Br. J. S. may be dispo&ed of 
as the parties may agree. 
8 



DISCUSSION OF SLA.VERY. 



Peoposition — Slavery is Sinful, 

0. B. affirms; j. s. denies. 



[From the Christian Record of August 5th, 1862.] 

0. B.'s FIRST AFFIRMATIVE. 



The editor of the Record^ in noticing the proposed dis- 
cussion between J. S. and myself, (which he seems to regard 
as a fixed fact,) says of J. S. and myself: " These brethren 
are among our old, well-tried and experienced brethren. 
They have passed the age of fiery youth ; they both belong 
to the legal profession." The readers of the Record will, 
of course, accept this statement of the editor as an assu- 
rance that the discussion, if it proceeds, will be conducted 
in the true christian spirit, and upon fair and honorable 
principles. But to J. S. and myself it is an admonition, 
and an intimation of what will be expected of us. I so ac- 
cept It. J. S., in a private note to the editor, professes 
a desire to come to a knowledge of the truth, and if in 
error, hopes to be shown that error, &c. I am not sure 
that a public discussion, either for or against any given 
proposition, is the right way to conviction of error on the 
part of either disputant, and I have never been vain enough 
to suppose even for a moment, that my powers of argument 
were sufficient to convince J. S. of the sinfulness of slavery 
after he should have committed himself publicly to disprove 
the proposition. The days of miraculous conversions are 
supposed to be past. For J. S. then, I have no hope of 



108 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, 

a conversion. Others, who are not so committed, mny be 
reasoned with to more advantage. I partake largely in the 
doubt expressed by the editor, that " this may not be the 
most favorable time for such a discussion." The argument 
has been assumed by a Logician, stronger and more in earn- 
est than any human reasoner. His arguments are facts, 
fearful, terrible facts — deducing conclusions, and forcing 
convictions upon reluctant masses of men, which were hope- 
less of attainment by human reason. Awed and abashed 
by the developments of this stern logic, the friend of the 
oppressed is disposed to " stand still and see the salvation 
of God," and, in the presence of the "burning bush" of 
the Great Deliverer of Horeb, to feel rather than hear the 
admonition, " Draw not nigh hither, put off thy shoes from 
off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is Jioly 
f^round." But it may be, that, notwithstanding past deri- 
[ictions, the professedly christian church is not yet wholly 
rejected as an agency in the accomplishment of God's pur- 
poses — there may still be work for it in the moral field of 
this controversy. The Great Deliverer may yet accept the 
tardily proffered services of his people in the consumma- 
tion of his purpose for the deliverance of the oppressed. 
The hope and trust that this is so — the anxiety, not for the 
abolition of slavery, for that I regard as God's work, and 
3ure of being accomplished, either with or without the aid 
and co-operation of either church or State ; but that the 
shurch and people of God may be his willing agents in this 
work, I am induced to make an effort to prosecute this dis- 
cussion so far as my time will permit, and as I may think it 
profitable to do so. 

But to the article of J. S. He says that I have " at last 
agreed to affirm that slavery is sinful, and to undertake to 
prove it." He may take to himself his own admonition, 
'' In searching after truth, we should speak of things truth- 
fully." If I understand myself, I have from the fii^sf 
affirmed that "slavery is sinful," and ray venturing to sug- 
gest th;it it was " a collossal crime," stirred him up to chal- 
lenge this debate. But first and last I have declined to dis- 
cuss any other form of slavery than that which is legalized 
in American society. With the distinct avowal that I 
should so limit myself, I have consented to the form of the 
proposition suggested by J. S. As I have the affirmative 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 109 

of the question, it will be both ray privilege and my duty 
to lead in the discussion. It would be a work of superer- 
ogation for J. S. to defend where I make no attack, and it 
may, perhaps, be as much as he can accomplish to meet and 
refute successfully the arguments against American slavery. 
Should he make an effort to lead me farther, he will pardon 
me if I should not choose to follow. While American 
slavery is bringing upon us the rage, and the tempest of 
fiercest war, wrapping our towns and cities in flames, 
drenching our land in blood, and covering our fields with 
our slaughtered friends and relatives, I have no heart to 
turn aside from this one great question to discuss with J. S. 
the moral character of West India Cooleyism, Mexican, 
peonage, Russian serfdom, former English villianage, 
ancient Jewish servitude, or even Roman slavery. So far 
as any or all of these may be legitimately drawn into the 
discussion of American slaverj, I may give them the atten- 
tion which I niay deem necessary, but beyond that, I leave 
to J. S. the undisputed possession of those fields. 

J. S. does not like to be regarded as having undertaken 
to defend slavery. His restiveness under the imputation is 
a favorable indication. I hope that restiveness may in- 
crease, until he shall be induced to make a much stronger 
disclaimer. The hypothetical case he puts does not, as I 
perceive, help him out of the difficulty. 

With the foregoing explanation of my own position and 
purpose, I am willing that the proposition should stand as 
stated by J. S. As to the rules of discussion which he 
proposes^ they seem to me to contemplate a discussion more 
formal than I anticipated. I from the first declined a for- 
mal discussion, for the reasons that my health was too poor, 
and my time too much occupied, to enable me to promise so 
much. These reasons, especially the last one, exist now 
in still greater force than formerly. I am v/illing, how^ever, 
to make an effort to sustain the proposition by some argu- 
ments to be presented from time to time, as may be con- 
venient for me, to which J. S. can reply as lie thinks best. 
So far as it depends upon me, I am willing that it be under- 
stood, that each of us have the privilege of using an equal 
space in the Record for the presentation of our arguments, 
and in the order named by J. S., and that the limit or ex- 
tent of the privilege be determined by the editor of the 



110 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

Record, either in advance or otherwise, as he maj think 
best. I woukl further stipuLite for J. S. that in the ab- 
sence of argument to fill up his portion of the space, he 
have the privilege of selecting at random, and incorporating 
in his argument, without reference to their pertinency or 
applicability to the question at issue, such portions of Holy 
Writ as he may desire thus to reproduce; for the Scripture 
*' is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction in righteousness." The want of argument can 
not probably be better supplied ; for however inapplicable 
to the subject, the quotations will be profitable, for some 
purpose, to the devout reader. 

I had not contemplated writing a book. My impression 
is, that it would be an unprofitable investment, either pecu- 
niarily or otherwise. I suppose, however, that either party 
would have the right to publish the discussion at his own 
expense, as no copy-right is contemplated by either. As 
J. S. has intimated his desire for such publication, I wish it 
understood, that neither party will make the publication 
without the co-operation of the other, unless the other first 
decline to co-operate on equal terms. 

Having disposed of these preliminary matters, I come 
now to the proposition itself. I affirm that "slavery is sin- 
ful." I have not room in this article to introduce any new- 
argument, but will re-state my former one, and notice the 
reply of J. S. to it. 

It is unfortunate either for mo, or for J. S., that he does 
not seem to understand that argument. It shows a want 
of capacity, either in me to state an argument clearly, or 
in him to comprehend it when so stated. Let me try again, 
and perhaps I may be better understood. The argument is 
capable of being presented in the form of a syllogism, and I 
will endeavor, by reversing the order in which it was stated, 
to so present it now. 

The first and major proposition in the syllogism may be 
stated as follows : 

The Lord Jesus commanded that " all things whatsoever yo 
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." 

The second and minor proposition may be stated thus : 

The love of liberty is an intuition — an instinct of hu- 
manity. Above and before all logical reasonings, each one 
desipes for himself personal freedom, and rejects and repels, 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. Ill 

as most abhorrent to his nature, the idea of being made a 
slave, and held in bondage, subject to be used, controlled, 
and disposed of, as property, bj any other human being. 

These two propositions are the premises of the argument. 

The conclusion to be deduced from these premises is : 
That to deprive a human being of liberty, to reduce him to 
slavery, and hold him as property, subject to be used, con- 
trolled, and disposed of, as other property, is a transgres- 
sion of the law of the Lord, embraced in the first proposi- 
tion, and consequently sin. This conclusion is the inevita- 
ble sequence of the premises ; and if there be no error, no 
defect in either of the propositions, the argument proves 
bejond doubt or controversy, that "slavery is sinful." 

Is there error or defect in either proposition ? The first 
is the command of the Divine Master, and in the very 
words of the Holy Writ. It is addressed to man, under all 
circumstances, and in every condition in life, and covers the 
whole field of man's relation to man. It "is a discerner of 
the thoughts and intents of the heart," and appeals to 
man's intuitions, prompted by his self love, and claiming 
sympathy, consideration, assistance and justice from others, 
deducing from these intuitions, these promptings of a man's 
selfish desires, an infallible and unerring rule of conduct 
for him, in his actions towards others. 

J. S. will hardly venture to deny this proposition, vdiat- 
ever else he may say of it, to avoid its force in this argument. 
He does not, however, seem to know that it is a part of the 
argument as heretofore stated by me. I regard it as the 
basis of the argument, yet he passes it by with scarcely a 
notice, except to say that he "will defer its consideration 
until it takes its regular place in the discussion." As I 
have the affirmative, the onus of the proof of the proposi- 
tion lies upon me, and it is both my privilege and my duty 
to lead in the discussion. J. S. has the negative, and it is 
therefore incumbent on him to dispose of ray arguments as 
I introduce them. When he shall have accomplished that 
successfully, his work will be done. I have introduced this 
divine command as the major proposition, in what I have 
termed my "first and best evidence" in support of the 
main proposition. I so term it, for the reason that it covers 
the whole field, and pervades, with the light of a divine- 



112 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

command, the whole subject of controversy. I expect that 
J. S. will give it proper attention. 

The second or minor proposition of the syllogism, as 
above stated, needs little to support it more than I have 
already said of it in my former articles, to which I refer 
the reader. The intuitions of man's nature, the very in- 
stincts of our being, are the proof which I adduce to sus- 
tain it. My proof is in the heart and consciousness of each 
reader. To the reader I appeal : " Would you willingly 
surrender your liberty — your personal freedom? Do you 
desire to be made a slave, and held in bondage, subject to 
be used, controlled, and disposed of, as property, by any 
other human being?" For a reply you would not pause to 
reason, and to canvass the advantages and disadvantages of 
such a position, but above and before all reasoning, and 
precluding all deliberation, out of the intuitions of your 
own hearts would come the prompt and indignant answer : 
" No ! Death rather than slavery." Were I to put the 
same question to J. S., I doubt not he Avould give them the 
same prompt and indignant reply. He could not so far forget 
his own manhood, and belie the instincts and intuitions of 
his own nature, as to hesitate or pause even to reason upon 
such a subject. This proposition of the syllogism I regard 
then as established beyond controversy, and have no fears 
that J. S will be able to refute it. 

The premises being established, the conclusion follows as 
a natural and inevitable sequence. That concUiEion is, that 
to enslave a human being, and hold him as property, sub- 
ject to be used, controlled and disposed of as other prop- 
erty, is a transgression of the divine law, in refusing to do 
to others as we would that they should do to us — and is 
therefore sin. 

Hence, I have said, and now repeat, that the intuitions of 
man's moral nature, in the light of the divine law, and un- 
der the promptings of an enlightened conscience, assert, 
with deep earnestness, the truth of the proposition that 
" slavery is sinful." 

In conclusion, I again quote from Holy Writ, and the 
quotution may perhaps be regarded as pertinent here: "For 
if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and 
knoweth all things. Beloved, if our hearts condemn us not, 
then have we confidence towards God."^ 0. B. 



(1) 1 John iii, 20, 21. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 118 

[From the Christian Record of August 12th, 1862.] 

FIRST REPLY OF J. S. 



. I confess that I am surprised at the course of my brother 
0. B. Instead of accepting the rules proposed by me for 
the discussion, or proposing them in a modified form^for my 
consideration, he has gone on in a rambling way, and set- 
tled nothing definitely. 

Logical discussion, to elicit truth, should be carried on 
under explicit rules, equal and fair. And the erratic course 
of those who denounce slavery as sinful, makes it the more 
necessary in a discussion with any of them, to have explicit, 
definite rules of discussion. They are rambling and erratic 
in their course, "wandering stars,"^ and should be tied down 
to pursue a rational course, when a grave examination, by 
"the word of truth," of their hallucinations, is undertaken. 
But it seems that this can not be had. They must first be 
restored to reason — to their "right mind"^ — before they 
can be induced to act rationally ; and 1 suppose I ought to 
have known that this is so. 

The first two paragraphs of 0. B.'s last article present 
another strong evidence of " fanaticism of error." The 
" wild notions " contained in them could as properly have 
been expressed by the Saracens of the year 650, and by the 
Crusaders of the year 1098, as by my brother 0. B. 
Whether such " wild notions " will be adhered to now as 
they were on those occasions, till as much mischief is done 
as was then done, the Lord only knows. May he yet avert 
such awful calamities, is my devout prayer. 

" Americnn slavery bringing upon us the rage and the 
tempest of the fiercest war"!! &c., says 0. B. in his last. 
If slavery brought on the war, why did it not bring on war 
during the first fifty years or this government? as it existed 
then more in proportion to the w^hole people, than now. 
All, however, was peace, till fanaticism sprang up. As well 
might the Crusaders have said, that the tomb of the Savior 
brought upon them the rage and tempest of war ; and have 
added, as is now added, that it must be exterminated, to 
take away the cause of the war, and give us lasting peace ! 

(1) Jude 13. (2) Mark v, 15. 



114 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

It is strange what hallucinations can seize and lead cap- 
tive the human intellect. Alas! that it is so. But inspira- 
tion informs us, that because we receive not the love of the 
truth, God sends upon us such strong delusions.^ To cast 
in my humble mite, to bring us back to the love of the 
truth, and free us from such delusions that are working 
such great calamities among us, I shall, with the blessing 
and p*ermission of God, proceed with this discussion in the 
rambling, erratic course that my brother 0. B. seems dis- 
posed to take. If this is not " the most favorable time,'' it 
is certainly the time when it is most needful to find the 
truth and pursue it. 

I will say to the editor of the Record, that I did not con- 
template, in making up for deficiency of space, to have any 
articles of so great length as to discommode him. The fair 
construction of the rule I laid down, is, that the articles 
should all be, as nearly as may be, of two columns length; 
but not necessarily of that length ; and excesses or defi- 
ciencies afterwards allowed for in other articles — not in one. 
Brother 0. B.'s last article fills a little over two and a quar- 
ter columns. 

His argument, as reversed and re- stated, is entirely a dif- 
ferent syllogism from that previously stated. I will examine 
it as last stated. 

" Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them : for this is the law 
and the prophets."^ 

1. If this part of the word of the Lord did forbid slavery, 
and make it sinful, and if holding slaves was a violation of 
this Golden Rule of the Lord, that includes both the law and 
the prophets in it, the inspired apostles would certainly have 
so informed slaveholding masters, when converted to Chris- 
tianity, and would have required them to free their slaves. 
But they did not do so. They, by divine inspiration, pre- 
scribed rules by which the masters and slaves should govern 
themselves in their respective states and conditions to each 
other, as master and slave, and did not inform them that that 
relation was sinful — was a violation of the Golden Rule of 
the Lord — and that they must dissolve it. Paul substan- 
tially quoted this rule in two of his epistles, and yet in one 



(1) 2Thes. ii. 10. U. (2) Matt, vii, 12. 



DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. ^^ 



of these very epistles, he enjoined upon ""ff^ ,;;';^ ^=', „'^ 
their duty to each other, ^vithout saymg tl^J* ''>'',. ff'°^ 
they held to each other was a violation of the lule, and 
Se sinful ; but instead of doing that, h^o.^"'^-";.'^' ^ « 
the churches, ih^t, in whatever state orcond.t.on m life each 
one was callkl into the christian kingdom, that he should re- 
main in that state or condition, whether bond or free, cir- 
cumcised or uncircumcised ; that if any were called, being a 
slave, to care not for it; but if he could be made fiee to 
ise it. rather, that is, prefer it.' He sent the slave On " 
mus back to his master, Philemon, with an apostohc le ter 
in which he did not say that holding O"^^'™"?..^^^^";,^?' 
was a violation of the Golden Rule. How ditferent this 
teaching and action from that of those who run under- 
ground railroads, their aiders and abettors . 
° Much more apostolic precept and action could be cited 
to show, that they did not construe the Golden E„e a. 
forbidding slavery; and their construction of *at r" « is 
conclusive to all who arc willing to take God at his woid 
and live, or square their conduct by it. , . , ,, ^. „ 

2. Bu the Lord expressly says that this rule is both the 
law and the prophets. It includes both. Wha ,s he law 
then? See Ex. xxi, 1-21; Lev. xxv, 89-55; Deut. xv 
12-18; which est,ablish slavery, and prescribe r" ^^ a" J 
regulat .,ns for its government. And the Lord said that the 
Gol.ien Rule was this law, instead of saying tha it counter- 
acted, contradicted, or repealed, or superseded it, as brothei 
OB argues. It is better to regard what the Lord says, 
thVn 'what 0. B. says. And the prophets what are they on 
s subject? See Jer. xxxiv, 8-22, where sore punish- 
ments are denounced for disobedience of this law of slavery 
Other passages might be quoted to the same effect from the 
prophets. And this is the Golden Rule as expounded by 

""s^S'se interpretations of the Golden Rule, by the in- 
spired apostles, and by the Lord himself, settle its meaning 
and construction authoritatively and conclusively. But 
there is no harm in us poor, weak, uninspired mortals, 
looking at it ourselves, and seeing the apositeness and cor- 
rectness of the divine interpretation of it. 



(1) 1 Cor. vii, n-21. 



DISCUSSIOX OF SLAVERY. 

Does a master want others to i'vce hhu'? Kn k ' 
he IS not in bondage. The Golder RmI V ^^^ ^ ^^ecause 
quire him to free his shu4s t an e t *i ' '^''' "'' ^^^• 

to free him Ilenr^o t .I t "" '^''''^ "^^ ^^^"^ them 
_^ iuiij iien^e the necessity, to <rive thp rnl^ o p ' 

tlius: If I were -i 'lu'. T '' ''"''"^ '" ''"^ °'^^'«'' 

-e; tho..ef„:^eri il-^Tf % nl^ I ^ 'bo'^^.T'/r ''' '^^^ 
the r circum^fMnr.A^ T i ^''^^^^' oecause, if I were in 

circumstances LmL fa . ? ^ "^ "^r '° '"'' "'^''^ ^'■" '^'«'> 
not stop at Lt:lt Z '^'""^ r^'^ '«' ^^''^ *>-""' d» 

;voH, ^-ith .til,: tire t:^:,3r L^'r.;?; ^"ll 

I've in peace, harmony and co.corrt w t?h?m 'Vf °, i'' '" 
speak evU of'l,^ nd n r ''■ '^'T"'"'' '"'^«'-^' ''"^ 
speak "e it II r^ ' 1 ' t,'" 'V"' ''^"°""^^' ''-'■>'' -"' 

f i.. servant ri';:;fa;;'r'b:;r tb^otSo' r'f'"^^ 
:;-S"?i'in7ib:::z™r'--Hrrvr 

upon hi™ and his neighbors, to'S ^^^'deJ^VS ^ 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 117 

turn his and their families, and domestic arrangements and 
order of society ? If he does not, the Golden Rule does 7iot 
require him to make ^'ar upon others for such purposes; 
but enjoins him not to^ do it. These and a great many 
other things, the Golden Rule teaches and enjoins upon 
Bro. 0. B. and me, as well as upon all others ; but it does not 
authorize any of us to be picking at the motes in our 
brethren's e3^es, instead of pulling the huge beams out of 
our own ; nor to get up crusades against them, if they do 
not square their conduct according to our notions of right 
and wrong. That was the spirit that actuated the Crusaders, 
Sara'cens, anti-christians of every grade, and all tyrants; 
and is, itself, at war with the spirit of Christ. 

His major proposition, as he has arran^^ed his syllogism 
in his last, failing to answer the purpose he quotes it for, 
logic does not require me to examine his argument further. 
He narrows his minor (major, as he stated before,) down to 
desire of personal freedom, and the abhorrent "idea of be- 
ing made a slave;" and he draws his conclusion, wild and 
rambling, " that to deprive a human being of liberty, to re- 
duce him to slavery, and hold him as property," is a viola- 
tion of this Golden Rule; and slavery is sinful. 

Now, he has protested, all the time, that American slavery 
is the only slavery that he will discuss ; and it does not in- 
clude depriving human beings of liberty, and reducing them 
to slavery; for that was all done while the British govern- 
ment held this country as colonies, arji during the first 
twenty years of the exi?tence of this government, and has 
been no part of American slavery for fifty-four years. 
Holding of slaves, as property, in his language, or, truly, 
holding them to serve and labor, is the only one of his 
three that is included in American slavery. And I have 
clearly shown that the Golden Rule does not require the 
master to change the relation that he and his slaves did not 
make, but find themselves in. All American slaves were 
born so, and have not been deiyrived of liberty and reduced 
to slavery by any one ; they have only been and are held to 
serve and labor for their master. Slavery, itself, is obe- 
dience or rendering service. So 0. B.\s conclusion to his 
syllogism covers two things not existing in American slavery, 
nor in slavery itself. Man-stealing is a sin, and always 



118 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

was.^ Joseph's brethren committed a great sin in stealing 
him, depriving him of his liberty, and reducing him to 
slavery; but Potiphar committed no sin in buying him, and 
holding him a slave. The law (which the Golden Rule is) 
allowed persons to sell themselves into slavery, (see chapter 
above quoted) to deprive themselves of liberty, and to re- 
duce themselves to slavery. Why must brother 0. B., in 
undertaking to prove slavery sinful, talk about two other 
things — depriving men of liberty and reducing them to 
slavery — instead of conjfining himself to slavery itself? It 
comes from that reckless, loose; careless, rambling manner 
of speaking, that has been so long used by anti-slavery agi- 
tators, that it has become a second nature with them, and 
it seems as impossible to cure them of the fault, as it is to 
rid a people of provincialisms in dialect. 

I suGficiently showed in my last, that 1 John iii, 20, did 
not relate to slavery at all. But as he has quoted it again, 
without any attempt to avoid the objections I raised in my 
last to the use he was trying to make of it, I will quote it, 
with its context, here, which is sufficient to show the reader 
the utter absurdity of quoting it to prove slavery sinful. I 
quote from the New Translation — the reader can look at it 
in the common version. " We k}ioiv that we have passed 
away from death to life, because we love the brethren. He 
who loves not his brother, abides in death. Every one who 
hates his brother is a man-slayer ; and you knotv that no 
man-slayer has eternal life abiding in him. By this we have 
known the love of Christ, because he laid down his life for 
us; therefore, we ought to lay down our lives for the breth- 
ren. Whoever, therefore, has goods of this world, and sees 
his brother in need, and yet shuts up his compassion from 
him, how abides the love of God in him ? My little children, 
let us not love in word nor tongue ; but in deed and in truth. 
For, by this tve hiow that we are of the truth, and shall as- 
sure our hearts before him. But if our heart condemn us, 
certainly God is greater than our heart, and knows all 
things. Beloved, if our heart do not condemn us, we have 
confidence with God. And, whatever we ask, we receive of 
him, because we keep his commandments^ and do the things 
which are pleasing in his sight:" and, therefore, are assured 

(1) Ex. xxi, 16. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 119 

•s 

in our hearts. Whereas, when we do not keep his com- 
mandments, and do tlie things that please him, our hearts 
condemn us for the derilection ; and God being greater, 
knows it as well as we; 



J. S. 



August 6th, 1862. 



[From the Christian Record, of August 19th, 1862.] 

0. B.'S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE. 



" And the Lord commanded the man saying, of every 
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree 
of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat."^ 

I pass for the present without notice the reply of J. S. 
to my former argument, I hope, however, that the readers 
of the Record will preserve it for future reference, as I pro- 
pose hereafter to give it some attention. I desire here to 
introduce another argument upon the proposition under 
discussion, and will not have room for more in this article. 

American slavery, both in law and in fact, is based upon 
the assumption of the right of one man to enslave another, 
and to buy and sell, hold and possess, use, control and en- 
joy him as property. In the language of the law, and of 
judicial decisions, a slave is a chattel, and as such is subject, 
as all other property is, to be used, controlled and disposed 
of by the master at his own v/ill, and for his own profit or 
pleasure, irrespective of the will or consent of the slave. 
This assumed right of property in man is the basis of the 
whole slave system, the si7ie qua non of slavery, both in 
American thought and in American law. It is the trunk of 
the deadly Upas tree, which has sent its roots deep into the 
southern soil, and has spread its branches wide over the 
fairest portions of the republic. 

Within the assumed boundaries of the Union, about four 
millions of human beings, claiming with us a common pa- 

(1) Gen. ii, 16, 17. 



120 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

ternity, and a common brotherhood, are chattelized — held 
as property, like cattle, hogs and horses, subject to be used, 
controlled and disposed of, as may suit the pleasure, caprice 
or necessities of their masters. The aggregate market value 
of this species of property has been estimated at some two 
thousand millions of dollars. The legality of the claim — 
the validity of the' title in heaven's high chancery to all 
this property — are involved in the proposition under discus- 
sion. J. S, appears for the claimants. He could not ask 
a more important case, or one involving a heavier property 
interest. My purpose is to prove that the claim is false, 
defective, and vicious — that it can find no support in the 
divine law, but on the contrary is a violation of that law. 

The love of dominion over external things — the desire to 
possess, enjoy and control property, is universal in the hu- 
man breast. It was planted there by the Creator of man, 
for good and wise purposes, and might almost be regarded as 
that characteristic which distinguishes man from trie brute. 
When rightly and properly directed and employed, it is per- 
haps the principal agency in the civilization of man The 
right to acquire, possess and enjoy property, is by some 
writers even classed among the inalienable rights. 

The laws of meum el iuem — of mine and thine — fill much 
the largest spacp on the pages of the statute books of States 
and nations, and engross much the most of the attention of 
judicial tribunals. These facts show that the civil govern- 
ment claims, and to it is conceded, the proprietorship of, 
and the dominion over, all those things which are regarded 
as the subjects of property, and the right and duty of con- 
trolling their distribution among the members of the com- 
munity — of determining to whom shall pertain the exclusive 
use and enjoyment of the several portions thereof, and of 
protecting each in such use and enjoyment. So far as 
property rights are concerned, these are the peculiar, per- 
haps the only province of civil government. 

But this is admissible only in. reference to those things 
which may rightfully be regarded as property, and in and 
over which human governments may legitimately claim the 
ownership and proprietorship. The purpose of my present 
argument is to show that man — that any human being is 
not rightfully the subject of such a claim of ownership, 
either on the part of a civil commuunity, or of any member 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 121 

thereof. I present the argument in a series of propositions, 
which, if true, lead to the conclusion above stated. 

1. God the heavenly Father, is the Creator, Preserver, 
and Proprietor of man, and of all things. His they vrere 
and are. His right and title are supreme, and above and 
before any and all others. 

Does this proposition need proof? Listen, then, to the 
voice of inspiration : " So God created man in his own 
image; in the image of God created he him; male and 
female created he them."^ "Thou, even thou art Lord 
alone; thou hast made the heaven, the heaven of heavens^ 
with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, 
the seas and all that is therein, and thou preservest them 
all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.'"' '^ Behold 
the heaven, and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy 
God, the earth also, and all that therein is."" "The earth 
is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they 
that dwell therein."'^ " Lord, thou art God, which has made 
heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is."'' 

2. An}^ and all right or title, which any man, or any civil 
community, can rightfully have or claim to property in 
either men or things, must be derived from God the Great 
Proprietor, and held by and under a grant from him. 

The christian has no need of proof for this proposition. 
His own moral intuitions — the spirit of God dwelling in 
him — teach him that all that he has, and all that he is, are 
the gift of God ; that " every good, and every perfect gift," 
is from God, who " giveth to ail life and breath, and all 
things." 

3. The gifts and grants of God to man are either special 
or general, and all of them, in which we of the present day 
can have any interest, or under which we can claim any 
right, are recorded in the Record of His Will, as revealed 
to 'us in the Holy Scriptures. 

4. A special grant is a gift or grant to a designated per- 
son, or to a specified class or number of persons, or to a 
particular family or civil community, of rights, privileges, 
immunities, or property, to the extent and for the purposes 
specified in the grant. The grantees alone — those who are 
what the law terms parties or privies to the grant — are en- 

(1) Gen. i, 27. (3) Deut. x, 14. (5) Acts iv, 24.. 

(2) Nch. ix, G. (4) Ps. xxiv, 1. 

9 



122 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

titled to claim anything under it. All others are strangers 
to the grant, and can chiim no right or property under it, 
or derive any benefit from its provisions. 

I call special attention to this proposition, as I may have 
further use for it, in the consideration of the subject under 
discussion. The Scriptures afford many cases of such 
grants. I notice but one now. God gave to th€ children 
of Israel the land of Canaan for a possession upon certain 
terms and conditions specified in the grant. Among other 
things, he commanded them to exterminate the Canaanites 
then dwelling in the land, and he made their obedience to 
his commands, the condition of their possession. It will 
not be contended that the American Republic, or any State 
of the Union, can rightfully claim either the land of Canaan, 
or any other portion of God's earth, under that grant, or 
that the command of God to Israel to exterminate the 
Canaanites is or can be a justification to us to exterminate 
any people, and take possession of their land. God, the 
sole owner and proprietor of all things, " doeth according 
to his will, in the army of heaven, and among the inhabi- 
tants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto' 
him, what doest thou."^ There is not in the divine record 
any special grant, under which we can claim property in 
man, or the right to hold, use, control, and dispose of as 
property any human being. 

5. A general grant is a grant to the family of man, with- 
out distinction or discrimination of particular individuals, 
families, nations, or communities, of rights, privileges, im- 
munities, or property, to the extent and for the purposes 
specified in the grant. In such grant, aggregated and uni- 
versal humanity is the grantee, and each member of the 
human family may claim under it an equal right and title to 
partake of the benefits conferred by it. 

There are upon the divine record two such general grants. 
It may be well to refer to them, and consider them, and 
consider them carefully, to ascertain v.-hether they, either in 
their letter or spirit, confer upon any one or more of the 
human family, the right to hold others as property. The 
first of these grants was made soon after the creation, to 
our first parents, as the head and representative of all their 

(1) Dan. iv, S5. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 123 

posterity. It is in these words : " And God blessed them, 
and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and re- 
plenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over 
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over 
every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God 
said, behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, 
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in 
the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;, to you it shall 
be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every 
fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the 
earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb 
for meat."^ 

The other of these general grants was made to Noah and 
his sons, as they descended from Mount Arrar'at. They 
were then the head and representatives of a new race of 
men. Before and around them lay a new and a purified 
world awaiting their possession. The grant was a renewal, 
somewhat changed and enlarged, of God's former grant of 
dominion, and property to humanity. It is in these words: 
" And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, 
be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth. And the fear 
of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of 
the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that 
moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea ; 
into your hands are they delivered. Every moving thing 
that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb 
have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, 
which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely 
your blood of your lives will I require ; at the hand of every 
beast will I require it, and at the hand of man ; at the hand 
of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. 
Whoso sheddeth mean's blood, by man shall his blood be 
shed: for in the image of God made he man."^ 

If there be any other general grant of property to man, 
it is probably included in what is called the primeval curse, 
in which (Jod said to Adam, "In the sweat of thy face, 
shalt thou eat bread." Whatever else is involved in this 
curse, it may fairly be construed as granting to man the 
products of his own labor, and to have for that purpose a 
comprehensiveness of meaning, embracing the whole field 
of man's legitimate labors. 

(1) Gen. i, 28-30. (2; Gen. ix, 1-6. 



124 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

These several general grants are very extensive in their 
application. They embrace all — everything that man may 
rightfully claim as property. It is not my purpose hero to 
show ^yhat is granted by them, or to point out the means 
and manner of the individual possession and enjoyment of 
the things granted. To do so, even to the most limited ex- 
tent, would require more space in the Record than I can 
now ask. One thing is not embraced in either of the^e 
grants, and it is the one thing which is the subject of the 
present discussion, not in either of these grants, not in any 
common or general grant from God to humanity, is the 
right of property in man conferred upon or vested in man, 
or in any part or portion of the family of man. On the con- 
trary, the latter portion of the grant to Noah and his sons 
contains what the law terms the exclusion of such a conclu- 
sion upon this subject. The idea of property in man is exclu- 
ded by the terms of the grant. This is simpiy a property 
grant; and what relevancy or pertinency can the concluding 
sentences have, unless they are significant of such exclu- 
sion. Man is set apart, sanctified, shrouded in the image 
of God, and to him is given the protecting aegis of God's 
word. " Whoso &hed<leth man's blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man." 

The argument may be briefly re-stated thus : God, the 
Creator, is the original and absolute owner and proprietor 
of man, and of all things. 

No person or community can rightfully claim any domin- 
ion over, or property in, either man or things, except under 
and in virtue of some gift or grant from God. 

No general grant from God to humanity has conferred 
upon man, or upon any portion of the human family, the 
right of property in man. 

No special grant from God to us, as individuals, as States 
or as a nation, or in any other way, has conferred upon us 
the right of property in persons of the African race, or in- 
deed any right of property in man. 

The conclusion from these premises has been well and 
forcibly expressed by one of our distinguished writers. It 
is, " No one but God can own a man." To assert and ex- 
ercise the right of property in man, is on the part of any 
human being or civil community, an usurpation of God's 
right and prerogative, a sacrilegious invasion and appro- 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 125 

priation of that which he has reserved to himself, and upon 
which he has stamped his own " image and superscription." 
Such act is disloyalty to God, and treason against heaven. 
Slavery involves all these; and hence, the mildest form of 
reprobation which can properly be applied to it, is in the 
language of the proposition — " slavery is sinful." 



[From the Christian Record of September 2, 1862.] 

SECOND REPLY OF J. S. 



Brother 0. B. calls his last article a reply to me ; and 
yet it does not reply to anything I have said. It entirely 
abandons his "first and best argument," and strikes out 
into a new field. 

Sin and righteousness are not ascertained and determined 
hj inference. The papacy was built up and is sustained 
by inferential determination of what is sinful and what is 
righteous. So all the discord and jarring that exists among 
Protestants is brought about and kept up by inferential 
measures of right and wrong, of sin and righteousness. I 
have already shown that christians are commanded by the 
good word of the Lord to beware, least any man spoil 
them through such philosophy and vain deceit, after the tra- 
ditions or teachings of men, after the rudiments (elements 
or principles of reasoning and action,) of the world, and 
not after the law and teaching of Christ.^ And that such 
vain imaginations of the rudiments or elements of the world, 
darkened the hearts and made fools of those who yielded 
themselves to their guidance.^ And that those who thus 
walk in the vanity of their minds have their understanding 
darkened, and become alienated from the life of God through 
the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of 
their heart, in following such philosophy and vain deceit of 
their own imagination and reasoning powers, instead of fol- 

(1) Col. ii, a. (2) Rom. i, 21, 22. 



126 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

lowing the plain word and command of the Lord.' And 
hence the ambassador of the Lord, the inspired Paul, cast 
down such reasonings, and every high thing that exalteth 
itself against the knowledge communicated of God, and 
brought into captivity every thought of his mind to the 
obedience Of Christ, in giving to his disciples, and through 
them to us, the words which the Father gave him, instead 
of giving them philosophy, imaginations, reasonings accord- 
ing to the elements or rudiments of the world.^ If he did 
so, how much more necessary is it for us uninspired people 
to do so too. And, as christians are commanded, to come 
out of Babylon, and as we of the reformation profess to be 
coming out of her, we must abandon and eschew her prac- 
tices of determining right and wrong, sin and righteousness, 
by inference, philosophy, imaginations or reasonings, or 
any otherwise, howsoever, than by the word of truth. 

" Sin is the transgression of the law."^ It is not the 
transgression of an inference, or of a conclusion from a 
course of reasoning, either long or short. Sin is not deter- 
mined by a course of argumentation, but by finding the lav/ 
that it is a transgression of. Hence, brother O.B.'s two 
and a half columns of reasoning and deduction contained in 
his la&t article, if it was all true and logical, would not 
prove slavery sinful. But it is neither true nor logical; 
and, although what I have already said, is a sufficient an- 
swer to it, yet I will notice some of its parts. 

He says there were two general grants from God to man, 
and quotes those given to Adam, and to Noah and his sons."* 
And he says : " If there be any other general grant of 
property to man, it is probably included ii^ what is called 
the primeval curse, in which God said to Adam, 'In the 
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.' " But there is an- 
other general grant included in another curse which he does 
not notice, and which stands in the same chapter with the 
grant to Noah and his sons, and by which Ham's posterity 
was cursed. " Cursed be Canaan ; a slave of slaves shall 
he be unto his brethren. * -'- Blessed be the Lord God 
of Shem; and Canaan shall be his slave. God shall enlarge 
(or persuade) Japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of 
Shem ; and Canaan shall be his slave."^ 



(1) Eph. iv, 17, 18. (3) 1 John iii, 4. (5) Gen. ix, 25-27- 

(2) 2 Cor. X, 5 ; John xvii, 8. (4) Gen. i, 28-30 ; ix, 1-6. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 127 

Servant is ilie word used in the common version ; but 
slave expresses the true idea. 

The curse upon Adam and the curse upon Canaan are 
both equally the fiat of God; and the history of the human 
race, from the times of their denunciation respectively to 
the present, shows that they have existed all the time, and 
still exist, as much so as that the fiats that the serpent 
should go upon his belly, that enmity (hostility) should ex- 
ist between him and the human race, and that the fear of 
man and the dread of man should be upon the animal crea- 
tion, have existed all the time, and still exist. Was not this 
a curse upon the posterity of Hain, through Canaan, and a 
grant to the p'-sterity of Shem and Japheth? It was more 
so than the curse upon Adam was a grant to each of his 
posterity of the fruits of his labor. 

But in addition to the general grants to Shem and Japheth 
of the posterity of H;im, God gave to Israel the heathen 
round about them for slaves of inheritance,^ with power to 
take the life of the slave, because he was his money r So 
brother 0. B.'s assumption that there is no grant by God 
of property in man, is contradicted by the divine record. 
But he may say that this grant was to Israel. Well, so it 
was. But inspiration (not our reasoning) informs us who 
Israel is. They are not all Israel which are of Israel ; 
neither because they are of the seed of Abraham ; but the 
children of promise are counted for the seed f and chris- 
tians are the children of promise."* Hence, christians now 
constitute the true Israel of God, and have ever since the 
christian kingdom was set up. Has this grant to the true 
Israel of God, when it was planted in Canaan b}^ Joshua, 
ever been revoked or resumed by the Lord, and taken from 
his true Israel? If it has, I hope brother 0. B, will do me 
the favor to cite me to the passage of the divine volume' 
wherein the grant is revoked, and the thing granted re- 
sumed by the Lord. The christian law, as laid down in the 
apostolic writings, changes the duties respectively of the 
master and slave to each other, from those laid down in the 
lav/s of Moses ; but does not change the relation, nor revoke 
the grant given to Israel through Moses. Brother 0. B. 
being a christian is one of the grantees of this grant. 

(1) Lev. 3CXV, 44, 46. (2) Ex. xxi, 21. (3) Rom. ix, 6-8. 

(4) Gal. iv, -28. See also Rom. ii, 28, 29 ; John viii, 39 ; Matt, viii, 11, 12. 



128 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

The Lord dwelt a,mong the cliihiren of Israel in Canaan.^ 
He was both their Lord and their God. lie was their mas- 
ter, and they were his slaves,^' because he redeemed them 
from bondage in Egypt." He sold them six different times 
into slavery, to the petty kings and nations round about 
them, for their sins against, and disobedience of, him, and 
redeemed them back to himself upon their repentance and 
reformation. Some of the servitudes he sold them into 
were very grievous — as bad as, if not worse than, being 
sold South is, or ever was, which is the punishment that has 
been inflicted by American slaveholders, for the sins and 
disobedience for their slaves. These six servitudes amounted 
in all to one hundred and eleven years before Samuel judged 
Israel. So the Lord himself not only granted the heathen 
to his people Israel, but he sold Israel itself six different 
times to the heathen, before Samuel's day, and redeemed or 
bought tliem back again. Yet what christian will reproach- 
fully say that he '' trafncked in human flesh " ? 

So there is a divine grant of property in man to all the 
posterity of Shem and Japheth, in the curse of Canaan; 
and a grant to all Israel, in the law given by Moses, hotJt of 
'wJiich are iinrev&kcd. 

But 0. B. says that there is no grant from God to us as 
individuals, as States, as nations, of property in man; and 
that " to assert and exercise the right of property in man, 
is, on the part of any human being, or civil community, an 
usurpation of God's right and prerogative, a sacrilegous 
invasion and appropriation of that which he has reserved 
to himself," &c. 

Does he not know that our government (a civil commu- 
'nity) is now asserting and exercising the right of property 
■in all of us free American citizens between the ages of 18 
and 45 years, and drafting us into her service and labor; 
and not only that, but claiming our lives, if need be ? Does 
he not know that there are now, and have been ever since 
he was born and before. States of this Union that assert 
and exercise the right of property in the services and labor 
of persons of African descent? Does he not know that 
these powers exist, and have existed all his life? Certainly 
he does. Well, inspiration says, and christian inspiration 



(1) Num. XXXV, 34. (2) Lev. xxv, 55. (3) Deut. xv, 15. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 12^ 

at that, that there is no power but of God; that the powers 
that be, or exist, including both our National and State 
governments, are ordained of God; that \yhoever resists 
the power, resists the ordinance of God; and that they that 
resist, shall receive to themselves damnation.^ And the law 
of the Lord enjoins upon christians to submit themselves 
to everi/ ordinance of man for the Lord's sake.^ These 
things being so, will brother 0. B. insist that our govern- 
ment has no right of property in its citizens, and is usurp- 
ing God's right, and guilty of a sacrilegous invasion of his 
reserved rights, and hence resist the draft? or will he, as a 
good christian should, submit himself to that ordinance of 
man for the Lord's sake. And the same interrogatories 
can properly be asked him in reference to the claim and ex- 
ercise of the right to the service and labor of the negroes 
that is claimed and exercised by the slave States. The 
National and State governments are ordinances of God, 
The calling out the draft, and the establishment and keeping 
up the institution of slavery, are ordinances of man. There 
is this difference, hoAvever, in brother 0. B.'s case : he, if 
of the proper age, is operated upon, and affected by the 
draft; but as he and I live in a free State, and are not 
slaves, vfe are not affected personally, and have nothing 
whatever to do with the slave question of the slave States. 
Though the governments of those States are powers that 
be, yet they do not affect us. But if they did, (as 0. B. 
and those who think and act with him, have got it into their 
heads that they do) then, as good christians, they should 
submit tliemsdvcs {?) — no, their notions — to these ordinances 
of man, of States and communities where they do not live, 
FOR THE Lord's sake, and not disturb every body and the 
peace of society, by their constant clamor about them. 

Governments exercise power over the property, services 
and lives of their subjects. They are ordained of God, (as 
a necessary evil, if I may use that expression in speaking 
of the ordinances of God) and obedience to them is en- 
joined upon christians. And there is no distinction made 
in the good word of the Lord between those governments 
that establish and sustain the institution of slavery, and 
those that do not. The power of both is put down as the 

(1) Eom. siii, 1, 2. (2) 1 Pet. ii, 13. 



/ 

"ISO DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

ordinance of God. If slavery is sinful, government itself 
is sinful; and so O. B/'s sees it. For he denies to civil so- 
ciety, to-wit: government, property in mon, equally as much 
as he denies it as to individuals. 

Hence, 0. B.'s last long argument is untune, and hence 
illogical. 

He is very anxious to put me into the affirmative, by 
making a supposititious case that does not exist, and saying 
that I " appear for the claimants."' The render will remem- 
ber, however, that I deny what he affirms of slavery, and 
do not appear for any one. 



Aicgiist 25///, 1862. 



J. 



[From the Christian Record of September 9th, 1862. J 

0. B.'S THIRD AFFIRMATIVE, 



" And the serpent said unto the womun, ye shall not surely 
die, for God doth knc^- that in the day ye eat thereof, then 
your eyes shall bo opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing 
good and evil."* 

In my last, published in the Record of August IDth, 
which the editor inappropriately headed, " Second Reply to 
J. S.," I made no response to the reply of J. S. to my first 
argument. I stated that I had not room in that article to 
<lo so, but desired thereafter to notice it. Subsequently J. 
S. has replied to my second argument. Both of these re 
plies are unanswered by me, and a proper response will re- 
quire more than I can crowd into this article. I will first 
attend to the first of them, and will endeavor to limit my- 
self strictly to those matters which are in reply to my ar- 
gument. Other matters are introduced incidentally, and 
for efi'ect into each of the replies, some of which I would 
like to notice, but must forego that pleasure, at least for the 
present. 



(1) Gon. iii, 4, 5. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 131 

It will be recollected that t^e major proposition in my 
first argument "was the well known command of the Lord, 
commonly called '' the Golden Rule.'' In the construction 
of the language of this command, J. S. has attempted to 
give it an exposition, directly, and positively at variance 
with its spirit — its true intent and meaning. I am almost 
ashamed to reproduce his construction, as emanating from 
a professed disciple of our Lord Jesus. But we must hear 
J. S. He says : "Does a master want others to free him? 
No : because he is not in bondage. The Golden Rule, then, 
does not require him to free his slaves, because he does not 
want them to free him." And again, ''Does brother 0. B. 
want others to free him ? No — he does not. Then the 
Golden Rule, as laid doivn hy the Lord^ does not require 
him to free, or attempt to free any one." These quotations 
show the construction which J. S. gives to t-his divine law. 
It were better and more in character, as it would seem to 
me, in the mouth of the arch deceiver, than of a disciple of 
the Lord. According to this construction, the person who 
has an abundance of this v/orld's goods — who knows no 
personal want — who could have no desire that others should 
give him in charity either food, clothing or shelter — and 
who indeed would not receive such charities from others, is 
not bound, nor indeed is he permitted to bestow such char- 
ities upon others, whatever may* be their condition and ne- 
cessities. The widow^ and the orphan may weep on, for 
there is no help — no sympathy for them. The sorrowing, 
the sick, the afflicted, and the oppressed may suffer and en- 
dure, in hopelessness and despair, for there is no relief, no 
'^balvn in Gilead " for them. No one may offer help or 
consolation, but those who are in like need, and they of 
course have not the power to bestow either. The door is 
thus effectually closed against the efforts of any and every 
philanthrophy, of any and every charitable and benevolent 
enterprize, and man wrapped in the mantle of selfishness — a 
selfishness baptised in this divine command — is permitted, 
nay, more, enjoined, if he have "goods of this world, and 
sees his brother in need," to " shut up his compassion from 
him." Incongruous and inharmonious w^ith this construction, 
is the lengthy and most welcome quotation by J. S., from 
tho writings of the loving and beloved disciple. The con- 
struction in such an atmosphere of love, seems the serpent 



132 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

disporting itself in the very fountains of the waters of life. 
The spirit of the command — the intent and meaning of the 
language of the Lord — are sufficiently obvious, without any 
effort on my part to refute the construction which J. S. has 
put upon them. 

In reference to the concluding words of this command, 
to-wit: "for this is the law and the prophets," J. S., for 
the purpose of obtaining the Lord's sanction to the Hebrew 
law of servitude, insists upon the ultraisra of a literal con- 
struction. He says "that the Lord expressly saj/s that 
this rule is both the law and the prophets. It includes 
both." To adopt to the full extent the construction for 
which J. S. seems to contend, we must be firm believers in 
the extremest doctrine of transubstantiation, and suppose, 
that by some miraculous process, this rule of the Lord is 
transmuted into, not only the very precepts of the law, but 
also the very bodies and blood of the ancient prophets. 
This would be too literal even for J. S. It is better to 
adopt the plain and obvious intent and meaning of the lan- 
guage. To illustrate that meaning, let us suppose that J. 
S., upon being consulted on some matters involving legal 
and constitutional questions, should, in giving his opinion, 
say of it, " this is the constitution and the law." This form 
of expression would be fully justified by common usaj]jc, 
and there would be no danger of a misapprehension of its 
meaning. How ridiculous it would be for me to say in ref- 
erence to it, that J. S. claimed that his opinion included the 
whole body of both the constitution and laws. 

The term the law, when used by the Jews in that definite 
form and singular number, referred specially to the Deca- 
logue, the commands of the two tables. In reference to the 
law of these tables, the Lord upon another occasion said : 
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first 
and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, 
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two 
commandments hang all the law and the prophets." It 
does not appear thot these commands, in this form and lan- 
guage, were upon the tables ; but the first is the embodi- 
ment, in their spirit and meaning, of all the commands of 
the first table, and the second a like embodiment of all the 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 133 

commands of the second table. They were so adopted and 
held by the Jews before this utterance of them by the Lord. 
The Golden Rule, which we are considering, has reference 
to man's duty to man. It covers the whole field of the 
commands of the second table, and of the teachings of the 
prophets in reference thereto — no more and no less. It is 
an authoritative exponent of, and substitution for, that law 
and those teachings. It gives the law" in another form, and 
in other language, the better to correct the too limited, too 
technical, and too literal construction of that law, by the 
Jewish doctors and lawyers. Some Judge Somebody, 
among the Jewish lav/yers, had probably suggested that the 
term neighbor in the law was a term specific and limited in 
its meaning, and that in its utmost extent it embraced none 
others than the members of the Jewish family, and that all 
others were strangers, dogs and enemies. This was the 
general, perhaps uniform construction of the law of the 
second table among the Jew^s, and hence the maxim, " Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemies,'' to which 
the Lord refers. The term love in the law was also liable 
to a like misconstruction. Love is literally an emotion, and 
not an act; and hence it may have been said that the law 
had no reference to man's conduct to his neighbor, but sim- 
ply and only required kindly affection and friendly feelings 
toward him. The Lord, in the Golden Rule, which he sub- 
stitutes for this law, corrects both these errors of construc- 
tion. For loving he substituted doing^ and made our own 
selfish desires the measure of our charity, and the rule of 
our conduct to others. For neighbor he substituted men — 
all men — thus enlarging the boundaries of neighborhood to 
embrace the whole human family. This, too, is in accord- 
ance with all his other teachings, and especially in the para- 
ble of the good Samaritan. The apostles also taught the 
same lesson in all their teachings and writings " Go ye 
into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," 
is the great commission. " God is no respecter of persons, 
but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh ri^Tfit- 
eousness, is accepted with him."^ " As we have therefore 
opportunity, let us do good unto all men."^ *'Love worketh 
no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the 

(1) Acts X, 34, 35. (2) Gal. vi, 10. 



134 DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 

law."^ '' For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this, 
thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."" '^ God is love, 
and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God iu 
him. If a man say I love God, and hateth his brother, he 
is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath 
seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?""' If 
humanity would bathe in that fountain, and breathe of that 
atmosphere of love, which God has prepared for us, and to 
the free enjoyment of which he invites us, there would be 
no more slavery — no more sin in the world. 

I have, as I think, shown the futility and absurdity of 
the effort to wrest from the Golden Rule of the Lord liis 
approval of the Jewish municipal law of servitude, as of 
universal and perpetual obligation. Hence, the considera- 
tion of that law is not demauded in this discussion. How- 
ever, when the matters which I regard as more relevant to, 
and more pertinent in this discussion, shall have been dis- 
posed of, I may make an effort to show that that law is mis- 
understood and misinterpreted by those who would deduce 
from it an argument in favor of American slavery. 

The teachings of the apostles, and the practices of the 
first christians, are referred to by J. S. to prove a construc- 
tion of the Golden Rule different from the one I give it, 
and more in harmony with the views of J. 8. But the ref- 
erence is too general and indefinite to demand a specific 
response. I claim that those teachings and practices are 
in harmony with my construction of the rule. If J. S. will 
specify the parts of the writings of the New Testament 
upon which lie relies, I may be able to give him a more spe- 
cific response, and to prove from his own witnesses the 
truth of the proposition under discussion. 

J. S. has made an important admission. He says " man 
stealing is a sin, and always was.* Joseph's brethren com- 
mitted a great sin in stealing him — -depriving. him of his lib- 
erty, and reducing him to slavery." This, together with 
the context, fully authorizes me in claiming, that J. S. ad- 
mits, that to enslave a person — to deprive him of liberty, 
and reduce him to slavery — is sin. Thi^s is one position 
yielded; and if no more is gained, the truth of the proposi- 
tion that " slavery is sinful," is established by his own ad- 

(1) Rom. xiu, 10. (2) Gal. v, 14. (3) 1 John iv, 16-20. (4) Ex. xxi, 16. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 135 

mission. Slavery originates in the enslavement of persons, 
and if it originate in sin, it must of necessity be sinful. I 
claim to hold the position thus yielded in all the future of 
this discussion. 

To suppose, as J. S. does, that the transfer of the en- 
slaved, by sale or otherwise, from one person to another, 
would purify and perfect a title, vicious in its origin, founded 
in wrong and sin, is bad civil, and worse moral law. By 
the civil law, the purchaser acquires no better title than the 
seller possessed ; hence the maxim, " Buyer, beware of 
whom you purchase." Hence, too, the statute for the equal 
punishment of the thief, and the receiver of stolen goods. 
But J. S., anticipating the difficulty of the position, says : 
" All American slaves were born so, and have not been de- 
prived of liberty, and reduced to slavery by an}^ one." ' Is 
this so ? God is the Creator of all men. He has made no 
person a slave. " All men are created free." " God is no 
respecter of persons."^ He has put no difference between 
them." " And he has made of one blood all nations of men, 
for to dwell on ail the face of the earth.''" Freedom is the 
noamal and normal condition of man. It is necessary to his 
rationality. It is essential to his accountability. God 
m.-ule man, and to manhood, freedom is an indispensable 
requisite. Hence God made him free. Slavery is a condi- 
tion created by human laws, and other human agencies. It 
is superinduced upon humanity. It avails not to say, that 
it attaches to the person at the moment of his birth. Free- 
dom wa? the first — the normal condition. Slavery the su- 
perinduced — the unnatural condition In logical sequence, 
if not in the order of time being, the personal existence 
precedes slavery. That personal existence is a prerequisite 
to the enslavement of the person. Hence, every person 
who is held in slavery has been and is deprived of liberty, 
and reduced to slavery. That the whole life, instead of a 
portion of it, has been and is thus offered a living sacrifice 
upon the altar of this modern moloch, is certainly no ex- 
tenuation, but rather an aggravation of the crime. 

If this argument be sound, and I can see no defect in it, 
except in the imperfect manner of its statement, the ad- 
mission of J. S. yielded the whole field covered by the prop- 
osition, at least as far as American slavery is concerned. 

(1) Acts X, 54. '2) Acts XV, 9. (3) Acts xvii, 26. 



136 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

This article has been so far limited to the consideration 
of the reply of J. S. to my first argument. In his reply to 
my second argument are some matters which should receive 
attention. He there introduces two arguments for slavery; 
the one founded upon the curse of Canaan, the other upon 
the supposed grant, of the right of property in man, to 
Israel, which he construes to mean the spiritual Israel. 
Whatever I may think of the strength or soundness of these 
arguments, they embody perhaps the whole scriptural argu- 
ment in favor of slavery, and will therefore require more 
attention, and a fuller consideration, than I can give them 
in this article. I will endeavor hereafter to notice them, 
and show that they afford neither support of, or argument 
for American slavery. 

0. B. 



[From the Christian Record of September IGth, 1862.] 

THIRD REPLY OF J. S. 



My brother 0. B. has retrogaded in his last article, and 
I must follow him, erratic as he is. 

I shall not repeat what I have already said in my first 
reply. The reader will please look back over it. It is itself 
nearly a full answer to what 0. B. says upon the Golden 
Rul^ in his last article. I shall only say now, here, what 
may be necessary in addition to what I have said, to meet 
what my brother has said in his last. 

Charity, alms-giving, furnishing food and raiment to the 
needy, visiting the sick and afflicted, and administering to 
their Avants, &c., do not rest on the Golden Rule as the basis 
that makes them christian duties and obligations, but upon 
other Scriptures They are ascertained and determined to 
be acts of righteousness, by other parts of the divine vol- 
ume than the Golden Rule; and it is not necessary nor 
proper to wrest the Golden Rule from what it says, and in- 
terpolate it, to make it a precept for those virtues; and it 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 137 

can not be made a precept for those virtues without an in- 
terpohition. Brother 0. B/s construction of it will not 
obtain, without an interpolation, express or implied. But 
we must take the Lord's word as he uttered it, without in- 
terpolation ; and must not make one precept a precept for 
a thing or things that it is not a precept for, to justify such 
interpolation. Having seen the mischief done by such a 
course having been pursued by the apostacy, we should take 
warning and not follow in its footsteps. 

"For this is the law and the prophets," said the Lord, of 
the (jrolden Rule. For is here used in the sense of because; 
the injunction, therefore, is, whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them ; because this is the 
law and the prophets. But brother 0. B.'s position and 
argument says that "this" is not the law and the prophets, 
but is inconsistent with, supercedes and repeals that portion 
of the law and the prophets that relates to slavery. The 
Lord, however, said otherwise; and we must determine, 
each for himself, whether we will heed the Lord or brother 
0. B. This Golden Rule stands near the conclusion of the 
sermon on the Mount, in which the Lord had frequently 
said, you know it was said of old, so and so, but I say to 
you so and so: sometimes contradicting and changing 
what was said of old; sometimes modifying, and sometimes 
only explaining and applying what had been said of old ; 
in none of which was the law of slavery mentioned, contra- 
dicted, changed, modified or explained; and after all of 
which comes this Golden Rule with a therefore prefixed, 
which is equivalent to saying, for these reasons, " all things 
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even 
so to them ; because this is the law and the prophets ;" 
which is equivalent to saying it is consistent with them, 
it is the law and the prophets in a nut-shell ; and hence is 
entirely consistent with what had been said of old in rela- 
tion to slavery. 

What 0. B. says about love as a christian duty, would all 
be well enough if he would apply it rightly to the subject 
under consideration. He applies it to the slave only, and 
not to the master and slave both ; while the christian in- 
junction to love, and the christian duty to love, applies 
equally to both. Bro. 0. B. expends all his love upon the 
slave, while it is to be feared that his hate only is given to- 
10 



138 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

the master. Let him extend his love equally to the master 
and the slave, and then, as he is neither a master nor a slave, 
and is equally the ''neighbor" to both, let him look to the 
Golden Rule, as if, reads, to see how he should conduct him- 
self to both, and conduct himself acordingly, and he will then 
be in the letter, and, I apprehend, will begin to feel the 
spirit of the law of the Lord on the subject under consid- 
eration. 

The apostles, in all their teachings and writings, nowhere 
said that slavery was a violation of the Golden Rule, and 
hence sinful. I can not make this reference to their action 
and teaching any less " general," and I rely upon all that 
they said and wrote. If brother 0. B. can find where they 
did, let him point it out, and thus make the reference par- 
ticular. My reference must necessarily be general. And 
I will now add, that the Lord never said that slavery was a 
violation of the Golden Rule, nor that it was sinful, though 
it existed all around him Avhere he taught. 
.; Brother 0. B. is very much elated at "an important ad- 
mission " that he says I have made ; and he '* claims to hold 
the position thus yielded in all the future of this discussion." 
I am glad to see him pleased, and am entirely willing that 
he " hold" the position I have admitted. But iri this grave 
discussion, it is my duty not to let him deceive limself into 
elation, even for a short time. 

Quoting Ex. xxi, 16, I said, " man-stealing is a sin, and 
always was. Joseph's brethren committed a great sin in 
stealing him, depriving him of his liberty, and reducing him 
to slavery ; but Potiphar committed no sin in buying him, 
and holding him a slave." This is the " important admis- 
sion " I made. I am willing to be held to it " in all the fu- 
ture of this discussion." 

0. B. says that by this I admit " that to enslave a person, 
to deprive him of liberty, and reduce him to slavery, is sin" ! 
How crotchety a man's intellect becomes when he becomes 
an abolitionist! Or, it may be that the truth of the case is 
properly stated thus : How crotchety a man's intellect must 
become, before he can become an abolitionist ! Is stealing 
a man, and depriving him of his liberty, and reducing him 
to slavery, the same with simply depriving him of his lib- 
erty, and enslaving him ? Certainly not. Yet 0. B. puts 
them down as identical ! In the same twenty-first chapter 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 139 

of Exodus, which makes man-stealing a capital offence, it is 
provided that if a six-year Hebrew servant "plainly say, I 
love my master, my ivife and my children^ I will not go free ;" 
then he might be deprived of his liberty, and reduced to 
slavery forever, verses 5, 6 ; and that if a Hebrew man sell 
his daughter to be a maid servant, she shall not go out at 
the end of six years as the men servants do, verse 7. 
Hence, in the mind of the divine law-giver, there was quite 
a broad distinction between man-stealing and reducing peo- 
ple to slavery. And I hope my brother 0. B. will be blessed 
with ability to see it. 

The larceny of Joseph and the selling of him was the sin 
of Joseph's brethren.^ Potiphar did not sin in buying him, 
and holding him; first, because the divine record does not 
say he did ; and second, because God blessed Potiphar on 
account of Joseph.^ It is not necessary to talk about the 
stolen title he bought; The question is, did he sin by hold- 
ing Joseph by it? It is a question of fact, not of casuistry 
and speculation. The testimony of God is, that he did not ; 
because he does not bless people for sinning, nor in sinning. 
He cursed the Philistines for sinning in keeping the ark ; 
while he blessed Obed-edom for the righteousness of keep- 
ing it in his house." 

The receiver of stolen goods does not sin against the 
civil law of the land, unless he receives them knowing them 
to he stolen. What title to real or personal property exists 
among us that has not been tinctured with force or fraud at 
some stage of it? and if that is to affect it in our hands, 
who of us has a good title for anything ? But I forbear to 
pursue this thought. We are to determine this question by 
the law of the Lord, and not by the law of civil society. 
And title is not the question ; but it is, Is the holding the 
title, and exercising the rights of ownership of the title, a 
sin ? 

To prove that all men are created of God free, and are 
born free, in the face of the fact patent and existing all his 
life, and also in all ages of the world, that the slaves of 
the United States have all been born slaves, and that the 
subjects of the despots of Europe and Asia are, and have 
been in all ages, born subjects, and not freemen, 0. B. says : 

(1) Dent, xsiv, 7. (2) Gen. xxxix, 5, (3) 1 Sam. v ; 2 Sam. vi, U, 12. 



140 DISCUSSION OF tsLAVERY. 

" God is the Creator of men. He has made no person a 
slave." " All men are created free." God is no respecter 
of persons.^ He has put no difference between them." 
" And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell 
on all the face of the earth "" — to which he should have 
added Dow's text, " top-knot come down."^ 

When the secret that had been hid in God from the be- 
ginning of the world,^ hid from ages and from generations/' 
which secret was, " that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs 
and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ 
by the Gospel;"" when this secret was first made known, 
and revealed to Peter, and the astounding fact burst upon 
him, he exclaimed, " Of a truth I perceive that God is no 
respecter of persons ; but in every nation, he that feareth 
him and worketh righteousness is accepted of him."^ And 
Peter, in telling of this transaction afterwards, said, that in 
the admission of the Gentiles into the kingdom, God put 
no difference between the Jews and the Gentiles, purifying 
their hearts by faith, as the Jews' hearts were purified by 
faith.^ And 0. B. quotes these occurrences to prove that 
those born slaves are actually born free ! when what the 
passages prove is, that God has no respect of persons as to 
receiving them into his kingdom from one nation or people 
more than another; and puts no difference between them as 
to the manner of purifying their hearts, purifying the hearts 
of all of them alike by faith. And when Paul stood upon 
Mars Hill in Athens, and told the idolatrous Athenians that 
God had made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell 
on all the face of the earthy * -^ ^ that they should 
seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find 
him, 0. B. quotes this to prove that all the human family 
are born free ! It would come near proving that all are 
born christians ; but I suppose no one will be so silly as 
to quote it to prove that. In all seriousness, 0. B. should 
properly have closed these quotations with Dow's text, 
'^ top-knot come down,"^*^ to prove that slaveholders should 
manumit their slaves, as Dow used it to prove that the ladies 
should take the top-knots off their bonnets. 



(1) 


Acts 


x,34. 




(5) 


Rom, 


, xvi, -25 ; 


iEph. 


iii. 


9. 


(9) 


Acts XV, 7-9. 


(2) 


Acts 


XV, 9. 




(6) 


Col.: 


i, 26. 








(10) 


Matt. 


xxiv, 17. 


^3) 


Acts 


xvii, 


26. 


(7) 


Eph. 


iii, 6. 














(4) 


Matt, 


, xxiv 


,17. 


(8) 


Acts 


X, 34. 















DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 141 

We should all be careful not to handle the Word of God 
deceitfully.^ 

As I am engaged in a religious discussion, and not a 
political one, I shall not notice the political quotation he 
makes — " all men are created free " — but will say, that, in 
a proper forum, I can, as I have frequently heretofore done, 
show that it is equally misapplied and perverted with the 
above passages from the divine volume. 

All his philosophy and vain imaginings about the noamal 
and normal conditions of man, I pass by as unworthy of 
notice, for the reason already twice given, why it is proper 
to thus treat philosophy and vain /leceit, contradictory to 
facts patent to all, and unsupported by inspiration, which is 
the true source of knowledge. The slaves of America 
have not been deprived of liberty, for they never had it ; 
and they have never been redueed to slavery, for they were 
always there ; and the hair-splitting idea that being precedes 
slavery, is as sophistical and unsupported by fact, as that 
being precedes heirship. Being, existence, heirship, all 
actually take place at the same time, whether the infant 
heir be heir to thousands, to penury, or to slavery." 

My dear brother 0. B. has undertaken to prove that 
slavery is a sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. It is 
time that he had cited us to the law that slavery is a trans- 
gression of. He has issued his third number, and next will 
come his fourth. I respectfully request that if he can cite 
us to any law of the Lord of which slavery is a transgres- 
sion, he Vill do it in his next. He has not done it hitherto. 
And I want him to bear in mind, that to be a sin, it must 
be the transgression of a laiv^ and not the transgression of 
some inference that he or some one else may draw, nor of 
a conclusion from a course of argument. No thing can be 
established to be a sin by argument or inference. No one 
was ever held accountable as a sinner, and for a sin, that 
was deduced by argument, or rested on an inference ; and 
no one ever will be. From the day (jrod said to Adam, of 
a certain tree in the garden, "thou shalt not eat," down to 

(1) 2 Cor. iv, 2 ; ii, 17. 

(2) The chief captain bought the franchise of being a free Roman citizen with a great 
sum ; but Paul was born a free Roman citizen. Acts xxii, 28. Inspiration here recognizes 
the fact which the whole history of the hnman race proves to be true, that some are bora 
free and others not free ; and yet abolitionists reject all this light, clear as the noon-day 
sun, to build up their wild false theory, upon the false assuniprtion that heiiig precedes 
slavery. 



142 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

the close of the Apocalypse, God has laid down the law, 
plain and unmistakable, in every case where he has held 
man accountable as a sinner for the breach of it ; and so, 
too, of works of righteousness. And theorizing, and rea- 
soning, and inference, and conclusion from arguments, as 
to both sin and righteousness, have always led, and still will 
lead, to apostacy from God. So let my dear brother drop 
his reasonings and his conclusions, and his philosophy, 
(falsely so-called,) and look up the law of the Lord of which 
slavery is a transgression, and thus show it to be a sin in 
the only way in which it can be done, if done at all. And 
let him bear in mind, that calling slavery hard names, as 
" modern Moloch," in his last, or saying spiteful things of 
it, does not prove his proposition, and is out of place in a 
grave, christian discussion. And, as Jude informs us, that 
the archangel Michael, when contending with the Devil 
even, about the body of Moses, durst not bring a railing ac- 
cusation against him ;^ and as it may seem to some of our 
readers that what he says in his last about " arch-deceiver," 
and " the serpent disporting itself in the very fountain 
waters of life," are railing accusations brought against me. 
To prevent such unjust and untrue impressions getting into 
the minds of any readers, perhaps he had better not use 
such mode of expression any more. 

May the Lord aid us all in coming to the knowledge of 
the truths is my devout prayer. 

J. S. 

September 10th, 1862. 



[From the Christian Record of September 23, 1862.} 

0. B.'S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE. 



'' And when the woman saw that the tree was good for 
food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be 
desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and 
did eat; and gave also unto her husband, and he did eat."^ 



(1) Jude 9. (2) Gen. iii, &. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 143 

In looking: over the last article of J. S., I can perceive 
little in it -which would seem to require much attention. It 
is mostly a re statement of his former argument, somewhat 
extended, but not, as I perceive, strengthened. There is in 
it an abundance of assertions ; but no proof, no logical ar- 
gument. I m.ight desire to notice some portions of it, but' 
as J. S. is moving somewhat in a circle, he will probably 
give me an opportunity to do so at a more appropriate 
place in this discussion. I must not suffer myself to be 
drawn away from my own course of argument, to pick up 
the fragments of his, especially when I regard those frag- 
ments as of little value. I propose now to respond, more 
especially to some matters in his article of the first of Sep- 
tember, to which I hope the reader will refer. 

Slavery is based upon the idea of the right of one man, 
or class or race of men, to property in other men. It 
means the holding and trafficing in the persons — the bodies 
and souls of men as chattel property. Disguise it as we 
may, modify and qualify it as we will, this is its true sig- 
nificance in American thought, and in American law. In a 
former number, I endeavored to show that there is no such 
right — that God, the Creator, is the original, absolute owner 
and proprietor of man, and of all things — that man has no 
right of property except such as he derives from the grant 
of Grod — that by no grant from the Creator is man, or any 
class or race of men, invested with the right of property in 
man ; but that, on the contrary, God has reserved man, and 
all property in man to himself, for his own special use and 
service. As a clear and unmistakable indication of such 
purpose of reservation, he has stamped his own image upon 
man, ^' for in the image of God made he man." , And from 
this I drew the conclusion, which seems to me necessary 
and inevitable from the premises, that American slavery — 
the enslavement of the African race in American society, 
and under American law — is sinful. 

To this J. S. has pleaded the Noachian utterance of the 
curse of Canaan, and the accompanying blessings of Shem 
and Japheth, claiming this as God's curse upon the poster- 
ity of llam, and his grant of them as property to the pos- 
terity of Shem and Japheth. 

He has also pleaded the Hebrew law permitting the chil- 
dren of Israel to buy bondmen and bondmaids of the hea- 



144 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

then round about them, claiming this as a grant to all 
christians — the true Israel — of the right of property in the 
heathen. 

If these can be regarded as grants, they are inconsistent, 
and in conflict with each other. The grantees in the first 
are all the posterity of Shem and Japheth, and in the sec- 
ond all the members of the true Israel. The subjects of 
the first grant — the persons claimed to be granted by it — 
are all the posterity of Ham, and of the second all the 
heathens. To reconcile and harmonize these, we must 
adopt a new and hitherto unknown system of theology — a 
gospel of salvation not found in the Scripturesl We must 
conclude that the descendants of Shem and Japheth are the 
elected, foreordained members of the true Israel, and as 
such unconditionally entitled, not only to the ownership of 
the children of Ham, but to all the blessings of the new 
covenant, and that all the descendants of Ham are in like 
manner the elected, foreordained reprobates of earth and 
heaven, doomed not only to perpetual slavery here, but to 
perdition hereafter. J. S. will perceive the necessity either 
of correcting his faith, or withdrawing at least one of his 
pleas. To enable him to act advisedly in the premises, I 
suggest that the heathens round about the children of Israel 
were mostly of the descendants of Shem, and many of them 
justly claimed the paternity of the patriarch Abraham. 
The text of this second pretended grant will probably come 
under consideration again, should I attempt an exposition 
of the Jewi.sh law of servitude. For the present, I leave it 
with the suggestions already made in reference to it. 

The first pretended grant — the Noachian utterance — will 
require a more lengthy consideration, not as I think on ac- 
count of any intrinsic merit, or strength in it, either as ar- 
gument or evidence to support the claim set up under it, 
nor indeed wholly or principally for the reason that J. S. 
has adduced it, and relies upon it, but because it is made 
the basis of every Scriptural argument to sustain slavery. 
Every advocate of the system vauntingly and dogmatically 
quotes it, in mere wantonness and total disregard for the 
accuracy of his quotations, as heaven's sanction of the in- 
iquity of American slavery. 

The following is the text of this utterance of Noah, as 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 145 

recorded in the sacred history, and to it I ask the careful 
and close attention of the reader: 

" And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his 
younger son had done unto him : and he said, cursed be 
Canaan ; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 
And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan 
shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he 
shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his 
servant."^ 

This utterance can justly claim no higher character than 
the prophetic. It can not reasonably be regarded as more 
than an inspired prophecy of events then future; and even 
for this, there is no other evidence than historic facts, show- 
ing the fulfillment of its predictions. It claims to be no 
more than the simple utterance of Noah, under a feeling of 
just indignation against Ham, for his irreverent and impious 
conduct toward his father. In the light of subsequent his- 
tory, it may, however, be accepted as a prophecy. As the 
fiat and decree of God, it can not be sustained. The sacred 
record neither claims or intimates that it possesses that 
character. No other similar utterance, either of any of the 
patriarchs, or any other human being, referred to in the 
Scriptures, is regarded as possessing the character of a 
divine decree. God's decrees, his blessings and his curses, 
are recorded either as pronounced by himself, or as the 
word of the Lord by the mouth of his prophet, and never 
as the simple language of any man without reference to 
God's authority for the utterance. 

Regarded as a simple prediction of events then future — 
the developments of human wickedness and depravity, de- 
pendent upon merely human agencies — the utterance pos- 
sesses none of the characteristics of a grant, and can neither 
be pleaded as such, or in extenuation of, or excuse for the 
events predicted. 

For the purpose, however, of examining the subject fur- 
ther, I am willing, for the present, to treat this utterance 
of Noah as the decree, the fiat of God, which J. S. claims 
that it is. Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, 
of whom Ham was the youngest, as w^e infer from this text. 
Ham had four sons, Gush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan, of 

(1) Gen. ix, 24-27. 



146 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

whom it is supposed that Canaan was the youngest. Noah 
had partaken too freely of the fruit of the first vintage, 
and had become drunken and helpless. In his exposed con- 
dition, Ham had been guilty of a gross act of irreverence, 
and impiety to him ; and when he awoke from his wine he 
uttered this curse. It is not necessary here to inquire 
whether the conduct of Ham was the cause of, or simply 
the occasion for this utterance. Let the casuist settle that 
question for himself in such a manner as may be consistent 
with his own ideas of divine justice. We have to do now 
only with the utterance itself, and not with either the cause 
of, or the occasion for it. 

The utterance is in clear, precise and strong lan,i:;uage. 
The curse involved rested upon the head of Canaan ; and 
if k be God's curse, God himself selected the victim. J. S. 
says that it is the curse of Ham through Canaan. The 
curse was a bitter one, at the best — a terribly bitter one, if 
it have the import which J. S. contends that it his. And 
yet it is too limited in its terms to suit the idea of justice, 
which J. S. entertains. He thinks the curse should ]i ive 
fallen upon the head of Ham, that all his children might 
have been involved in it; and he really attempts, at thi-^ late 
day, to correct this omission of the Just One, and involve 
Ham and all his posterity in the curse of Canaan. The 
intent and meaning of the utterance can not, at least in 
this particular, be mistaken by any one not predetermined 
to pervert it. For greater certainty, the name of the 
doomed one is thrice repeated in the utterance. The curse 
rested solely upon Canaan. From him it might flow in the 
descending line to, and over all his posterity. By no law 
or usage, divine or human, could it flow back in the ascend- 
ing line to Ham, or outward into collateral channels to Cush, 
Mizraim and Phut. The silence of the record in reference 
to Ham, and these, his three sons, the total want of any 
reference to them in the deed, is conclusive evidence that 
neither its blessing or its curse was intended for them. 
This, together with the grief which Ham must have felt, 
that his younger, and perhaps his favorite son, was so cursed 
and so doomed, might perhaps have been regarded as a suffi- 
cient punishment to him for his wicked act. The African 
race of the present day are admitted to be the descendants 
of Cush. No one claims that they are the descendants of 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 147 

Canaan; and hence whatever may be the import of the 
curse of Canaan, it can not affect the African race. They 
are not under it, or involved in it, and American slavery 
can receive no support from it. 

Here I might rest this argument so far as this Noachian 
utterance is concerned. But I desire to push it further, 
and examine some, at least one other, of the terms used in 
the text. 

It is quite strange that one professing so much reverence 
for God's word as J. S. professes, should take the liberty to 
tamper with it as he does. He quotes often from the Scrip- 
tures, and yet rarely makes a quotation without introducing 
his own interpretations and amendations. In the text 
which we are considering, he has gone still farther. He has 
stricken out some words and substituted others in their 
place. The term servant, wherever it occurs in the text, is 
stricken out by him, and the term slave substituted for it. 
For this he gives no reason, and offers no apology, but sim- 
ply his own assertion that that is what it means. If J. S. 
were a thorough Hebrew scholar, his opinion might be en- 
titled to some consideration. But to both J. S. and myself 
the Hebrew " is all Greek." We neither of us know a let- 
ter of the alphabet, or can pronounce a word of the lan- 
guage. I will not be guilty of the folly, nor the ped- 
antry, of discussing with J. S. the meaning of Hebrew 
words and phrases. And yet there is a process of reason- 
ing open to us, and to all who have an ordinary knowledge 
of the English language, by which our confidence in the 
correctness of the common English version of the Scrip- 
tures may be either strengthened or weakened. Let us, 
then, inquire what are the probabilities of error in the com- 
mon version, in the use of the word servant, either in this 
text or elsewhere in the Scriptures. 

The words servant and slave are not synonymous terms. 
Each has its own peculiar meaning, and one can never be 
made the equivalent of the other. Servant is a generic 
term, and designates any and every person rendering service 
to or for another, whatever may be the character or quality 
of the service, though usually, in popular language, applied 
to persons engaged in the lower classes of voluntary service. 
Slave is a specific term, and designates a species of prop- 
erty — a person held as property, for use, consumption, or 



148 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

traffic, as other property. A slave may be, and usually is, 
a servant also, but not necessarily so. A slave-dealer may 
own a thousand slaves, and not have a servant among them 
all. A servant may be a slave also, but is not necesssarily 
or usually so. The word servant involves the idea of ser- 
vice — no more and no less. The word slave involves the 
idea of property as clearly and distinctly as does the word 
horse or ox. In common language — in American thought, 
and in American law — these are the significance of the two 
words. These terms and their meaning and import were 
fixed and established in the English language, and in com- 
mon use in English society, long before the common ver- 
sion, or King James' translation was made. And, indeed, 
at the time of that translation, owing to the condition of 
society in England, and the prevalence and activity of the 
slave-trade, the distinctive meaning of these terms was 
even more definitely and clearly marked, in the English use 
of them, than it is now in American society and in American 
use. 

The purpose of the translation was to express the true 
idea and meaning of the original in equivalent English 
words and phrases. The use of any word or phrase not so 
equivalent, would have been a false translation. We have 
seen that the words servant and slave are not synonymous, 
and do not represent equivalent ideas. The presumption 
is, that the translators have selected the right words to ex- 
press the meaning of the original, and this presumption 
amounts to almost a certainty, so far as these words are 
concerned, when we consider the circumstances under which 
the translation was made, the prejudices and opinions of 
the translators, and the influences which were operating 
upon them. Whatever may be thought of English opinion, 
either now or at any time since the translation, it was then 
decidedly favorable to slavery. The slave-trade was then 
in active and vigorous operation, stimulated by the counte- 
nance and favor of the Crown. The English King was a 
partner in the nefarious traffic. England's nobility favored 
it, and her merchants invested largely in the profitable busi- 
ness. There was no popular sentiment against it, and even 
the moral sense of the church was quiescent or approving. 
The translation was made under the auspices of the English 
Crown, and under the pressure and within the circle of all 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 149 

these influences favorable to slavery. It would be more 
than folly — it would be some evidence of insanity — to 
doubt that the translators, thus situated, would have used 
the word slave, or some equivalent English word, in the 
translation, whenever and wherever they could, as scholars, 
have felt justified, or even have found a plausible excuse for 
so doing. Whenever they used the word servant, we may 
feel the utmost confidence that the word slave would have 
been an improper one, and a false translation. The word 
slave occurs but twice in the whole English Scriptures, and 
in one of these instances,^ it is in italics, showing that it is 
not in the original, but was introduced by the translators 
to supply an elipsis. The context shows that the word 
there should have been servant, and not slave, and its in- 
troduction shows the disposition of the translators to use 
the word slave whenever they could find an excuse for 
doing so. 

If this argument be a sound one, as I am fully convinced 
that it is, the word slave, substituted by J. S. in the text 
under consideration, must be rejected, and the word servant, 
as found in the common version, restored to its proper 
place. The argument goes further, and applies to every 
case of the use of the word servant in the common version. 
I shall, therefore, have further use for it, in considering 
other portions of the sacred record. 

I have thus shown, and I think clearly, that slavery was 
not involved in the curse of Canaan. But, it may be asked, 
what then does it involve, and to what does it doom the 
posterity of Canaan? We need not here follow the for- 
tunes of the other sons of Noah, for it is only with Canaan 
and his posterity that this argument has to do. When 
Abraham first emigrated to the land of Canaan, he found 
the descendants of Canaan in possession of it. Even then 
they had become extremely wicked, and God punished their 
wickedness by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. 
God promised that land to Abraham, as a possession for his 
posterity, but told him that the iniquity of its inhabitants 
was not then full ; that his own posterity would be made to 
serve in another country for generations, before they could 
come in possession of the land. This service was accom- 

(1) Jer. ii, U. 



150 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

plished in Egypt, when God commanded the children of 
Israel to go up and possess the promised land, advising 
them that the iniquity of the Canaanites was full, and com- 
manded them to exterminate all the inhabitants of the land. 

The decrees and the commands of God must of necessity 
be consistent and in harmony with each other. We can 
not suppose that God would command the extermination of 
the Canaanites, if obedience to such command would conflict 
with his before expressed purpose and decree. And hence, 
if we regard the curse of Canaan as the fiat of God, we 
must look for the full execution and accomplishment of that 
curse before, or at the time the children of Israel came into 
full possession of the land of Canaan. Whatever remnant 
was left of Canaan after that event, was not sufficient to 
have been regarded, either in God's purpose or prophecy, 
or in subsequent history, as the people represented and 
symbolized by Canaan in the text. We must look, then, to 
the history of the Canaanites antecedently to the settlement 
of the Israelites in the promised land for the fulfillment of 
the curse.' While the Israelites were servants in Egypt, 
the Canaanites were spread over the land of Canaan, en- 
gaged in replenishing and subduing the earth; in enclosing 
and cultivating fields ; in planting vineyards ; and in build- 
ing houses and cities. No doubt they thought that they 
were laborin": for themselves, and that these thino's — the 
results and products of their own labor — were to be theirs 
for a perpetual possession. Yet history shows, that, in all 
this service and labor and toil, they were the servants of 
the Israelites — the servants of the then servants of the Egyp- 
tian. If Israel served the Egyptian, God had appointed 
the Canaanite to serve the Israelite at the same time, and 
Israel, in due time, entered into their labors. Thus, the 
curse was fulfilled, accomplished, and exhausted, when Israel 
found himself quietly settled in the land of Canaan, occu- 
pying houses and cities which others had builded for him — 
cultivating the fields which others had subdued and en- 
closed — and eating of the fruit of the vineyards which oth- 
ers had planted and prepared for him. 

Perish, then, that ^'philosophy and vain deceit, after the 
traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not 
after Christ,'''^ which would build upon this text a hideous 

(1) Col. ii, 8. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 151 

system of chattel slavery, as cruel and inexorable as death, 
and as enduring as time. Let ours be that better philoso- 
phy, ivhich is after Christ — founded in God's love to hu- 
manity, as manifested in sending his Son " to preach the 
gospel to the poor — to heal the broken-hearted — to preach 
deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the 
blind — to set at liberty them that are bruised — to preach 
the acceptable year of the Lord."^ 

0. B. 



[From the Christican Record of September 30th, 1862.] 

FOURTH REPLY OF J. S. 



My brother 0. B.'s articles increase in quantity, if not in 
quality. The last contains three and a half columns of 
matter. lie has commenced each of the last three with a 
quotation from the beginning of Genesis, of no pertinency 
whatever to the subject under consideration. It may be 
that he has commenced at the beginning of the Bible, in- 
tending to quote it all through, to see if he can not find a 
passage constituting a law, of which slavery is a trans- 
gression. If this is his object, I fear our readers' patience 
can not stand the infliction. 

He asserted that God never granted property in man. 
I produced the grant to the posterity of Shem and Japheth, 
of property in the posterity of Ham, in or following the 
curse pronounced on Canaan, and also the grant to the 
children of Israel of property in the heathen round about. 
I also showed that civil governments had, and exercised, 
property in man ; and that the power of the civil govern- 
ment was the ordinance of God. I said that these grants 
to Shem, Japheth and Israel, had not been revoked nor re- 
sumed by the Lord ; and called upon 0. B. to cite us to the 
passage of the Bible revoking them, if they had been re- 
voked. 

(1) Lake iv, 18, 19. 



152 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

How docs he meet these things in his last? He says 
that the curse pronounced by Noah did not apply to Ham, 
but to Canaan only, who is named in the curse ; that while 
Israel Avas serving the Egyptians, the Canaanites were serv- 
ing them, and thus were " the servants of the servants of 
the Egyptians;" and that ''thus the curse was fulfilled, ac- 
complished and exhausted." He takes no notice of the 
grant to civil governments, of property in man, and very 
little of that to Israel. 

The question was. Had God ever granted property in 
man ? I showed that he had in ISToah's day, in Moses' day, 
and in the Apostolic day; three different times and ways. 
lie meets it by the above special plea, or, as lawyers would 
call it, quibble, taking three and a half columns of the Record 
to state it in. The question was grant or no grant. He 
meets it by stating that one of the grants was not as large 
as I stated it to be — that it was confined to Canaan, and to 
his service to Israel, and was fulfilled, accomplished, ex- 
hausted, in Palestine before Israel got there ! 

But Canaan was to be Japheth's servant as well as Shem's; 
and Israel was not Japheth ; therefore 0. B.'s fulfillment 
was not a fulfillment, accomplishment, exhaustion, of what 
Noah said. When Israel was in bondage in Egypt, and 
also during the forty years that Israel was in the wilder- 
ness, the Canaanites were not serving Israel, but themselves. 
And the curse was^ that Canaan was to be a servant of ser- 
vants to Ids brethren, of course of the family of Ham, and 
not of the families of Shem and Japheth; for the three are 
distinctly stated, his brethren, Shem and Japheth. The 
curse made him a servant of servants to his brethren, and 
was followed by a grant of him, as a servant, to Shem and 
Japheth. And as Israel was not his brethren, but a part 
of Shem, serving Israel would not be serving his brethren. 
And hence 0. B.'s fulfillment could not be a fulfillment, if 
it was true in fact that Canaan served Israel as he says he 
did. But he did not. Canaan has always been understood 
to stand for, and represent the posterity of Ham ; but as to 
the question of grant or no grant of property in man, it is 
immaterial whether he represent the posterity of Ham, or 
his own. 

He takes the reason given why murder should be expia- 
ted by the blood of the murderer — " for in the image of God- 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 153 

made he man " as proof, " a clear and unmistakable indica- 
tion," according to his reasoning and conclusion from the 
passage, " that by no grant from the Creator, is man, or 
any class or race of men invested with the right of prop- 
erty in man; but that, on the contrary, God has reserved 
man, and all property in man, to himself;" when, in fact, his 
reasonings and conclusions are directly contradicted by the 
knowledge communicated of God in the above three speci- 
fied grants of property in man. This is, in him, exalting 
his own " imaginations " *' against the knowledge of God " — 
a thing that we are forbidden to do. 

Why did not 0. B. cite the passages of Scripture re- 
voking these grants to Shem, Japheth and Israel? and why 
was he entirely silent as to the grants to the civil govern- 
ments, State and National, exhibited by me from the writings 
of the apostles? 

He has a column upon the terms servant and slave. 
Though I have, in a preliminary article, given the Scripture 
definition of slavery, yet, as clear ideas and a correct un- 
derstanding of the terms used, are necessary in ascertain- 
ing truth, I will now investigate that matter fully. 

The merciful Lord has not only clearly told us what to 
do, and what not to do, but he has clearly defined most of 
the tilings necessary for us to understand, in order to un- 
derstand what he has told us to do, or not to do. Among 
the things thus defined are slaves and slavery. 

"Know ye not, that to' whom you yield yourselves ser- 
vants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey ; whether 
of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness ? But 
God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye 
have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which 
was delivered to you. Being then made free from sin, ye 
became the servants of righteousness."^ 

" They answered him, we be Abraham's seed, and were 
never in bondage to any man ; how sayest thou ye shall be 
made/ree ? Jesus answered them, verily, verily I say unto 
you, whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin."^ — 
Common Version. 

They answered him, " we are Abraham's offspring, and 
were never enslaved to any man ; how sayest thou, ye shall 



(1) Eom. vi, lG-18. (2) John viii, 33, 34. 



154 DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 

be made freef Jesus answered them, verily, verily I say 
unto you, he that committeth sin, is the slave of sin/' — 
Wesley s Translation. 

Some made answer, " We are Abraham's offspring, and 
were never enslaved to any man ; how say you, you shall be 
made free? Jesus replied, most assuredly, I say to you, 
whosoever commits sin, is the slave of sin." — New Trans- 
lation. 

*' While they promise them liherty., they themselves are 
the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome,, 
of the same is he brought into bondage.'"'^ — Common Version. 

" While they promise them liberty^ themselves are the 
slaves of corruption ; for by whom a man is overcome, by 
him he is also brought into slavery.'^ — Wesley. 

"They promise them liberty., whilst they themselves are 
slaves of corruption ; for every one is enslaved by that which 
overcomes him." — Neiv Translation. 

These contain clear Scriptural definitions of slaves and 
slavery, wi-thout determining whether Hebrew is all Greek 
to brother 0. B. and me, or not. 

In Romans 6th, the word servant is used in all the three 
translations quoted. Whether the Avord used in the origi- 
nal there, is the same used in the other passages quoted, it 
is not necessary to know, to ascertain the truth in the case. 
Being /re^ is put in contrast with being d^ servant; ^nd free- 
dom is the contrast of bondage. Sin is said to have *' do- 
minion " over them, (verse 14) and to " reign " if " obeyed," 
(verse 12). Read the whole chapter. 

But the Lord settles it in the passage in John viii. The 
Jews said they were never in bondage or slavery; for bon- 
dage in the Jewish law Avas slavery.^ The Lord said that 
whosoever commits (or serves) sin, is the slave of sin; for 
bondage is what they said they were not in, and he said 
that by serving sin or sinning, they were in bondage, that 
is, in slavery. Then the service of sin, as mentioned by 
Paul in Rom. 6th, placed those wdio served or committed 
sin, in bondage to sin, as explained and defined by the Lord 
himself. The thing spoken of by Paul in Romans, was de- 
fined by the Lord to be bondage, translated by Wesley, and 
in the new translation slavery. And abohtionists say, and 

(1) 2 Pet. ii, 19, (2) Lev. xxv, 42. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 155 

have long said, that Wesley said that slavery " was the sum 
of all villianies ;'' and hence he Avould not be favorable to 
the word slave over servant in translating. And so of the 
translation of the passage in 2d Peter. 

Hence, it is clear, that the Scripture definition of slavery^ 
is obedience or servitude; and of slave is, one who obeys or 
serves. 

The definition of a slave in the Constitution of the United 
States, \s a person held to service or labor} This is in ac- 
cordance with the Scripture definition. 

The definition given by Scripture, and by the Constitu- 
tion, which is the highest law of the land, is conclusive in 
a religious discussion of slavery, and as to Amprican slavery. 

But I will also show what lexicographers say. 

And first, Walker : 

Slave — One mancipated to a master, not a freeman, a 
dependent. 

Slavery — Servitude, the condition of a slave, the offices 
of a slave. 

Servant — One who attends another, a7id acts at Ids com- 
mand; one in a state of subjection ; a word of civilty used 
to superiors or equals. 

ii^ This is one of the few words which has acquired by 
time, a softer signification than its original, Knave, which 
originally signified ordy a servant, but is now degenerated 
into a Cheat; while servant, which signified originally a per- 
son preserved from death by the conqueror, and reserved 
for slavery, signifies only an obedient attendant. 

Secondly, Webster unabridged : 

Slave — 1. A person who is wholly subject to the will of 
another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose pe?'- 
son and services ax a wholly under the co7itrolof another. 2. 
One who has lost the power of resistance, or who surren- 
ders himself to any j^otuer wJiatever, as a slave to passion, to 
lust, to ambition. 3. A mean person; one in the lowest 
state of life. 4. A drudge; one who labors like a slave. 

Slavery — Bondage; the entire state of subjection of one 
person to the will of another. 

Slavery is the obligation to labor for the benefit of the 
master without the contract or consent of the servant. — 
Paley. 

(1) Const, art. iv, § 2. 



156 MSCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

Slal^ery may proceed from crime, from captivity, or from 
debt. Slavery is also " voluntary " or " involuntary ;" 
" voluntary " when a person sells or yields his own person 
to the absolute command of another ; " involuntary," when 
he is placed under the absolute power of another withofit 
his own consent. 

Servant — 1. (After two definitions under this head, 
comes this, the last sentence in this paragraph.) Every 
slave is a servant, but every servant is not a slave. (Bro. 
0. B. contradicts this in his last article.) 

2. One in a state of subjection, 

3. In Scripture^ a slave a bondman ; one purchased for 
mone}^ and who was compelled to serve till the year of 
jubilee; also, one purchased for a term of years. (Exod. 
xxi.) 

Servant of Servants — One debased to the lowest con- 
dition of servitude. (Gen. ix.) 

Hence, lexicographers agree with the Scripture definition, 
and with the definition of the Constitution of the United 
States; and I modestly claim that I have spoken in accord- 
ance with them, throughout this discussion. And hence, I 
have not taken *' the liberty to tamper " with '' ' iod's word," 
in saying that slave expresses the true idea of t lie word ser- 
vant in the curse of Canaan. For Webster pays, that in 
Scripture servant means : first, a slave ; second, a bondman; 
and that serva?it of servants means the lowest condition of 
servitude ; and servant of servants is the expression used in 
that curse. Canaan was first cursed to the lowest condition 
oT servitude or slavery to his brethren, and then given over, 
as a slave, to Shera and Japheth. Walker says that servant 
is one of the few words that has acquired a softer signifi- 
cation by time ; that originally it meant a person preserved 
from death by the conqueror, and reserved for slavery. 
Hence, the translators of the common version, who acted 
•over two hundred years ago, used the word servant in the 
harder sense, instead of being inclined to use the word slave 
if the original w^ould justify it, as is charged by 0. B. And 
Webster sustains this position of Walker, by giving the 
definition of servant^ as used in the Scriptures, to be a slave, 
a bondman. 

And it is clear also, that the word slave does not '^ involve 
the idea of property " " as does the words horse and ox ;" 



DISCUSSIQN OF SLAVERY. 157 

for slave involves the idea of property in the services and 
labor only of tlie slave; while Jiorse and ox involve the idea 
not only of pr('perty in their services and labor, but also in 
their bodies, meat, hides, tallow, horns, &c. And hence, 
also, it is clear, .that slavery does not mean "holding and 
trafficking in the persons — the bodies and souls of men — 
as chattel property." That is only an abolition exaggera- 
tion, that they have m^ade use of so long and so often, that 
they believe it; and "because they receive not the love of 
truth," they have been, by the Good Being, allowed to be- 
lieve it.^ 

Brother 0. B. closes his last article with the quotation of 
Luke iv, 18, IT), a passage often quoted by abolitionists, 
and I propose to examine it now, as- 1 have space enough. 

This was the commencement of the Lord's public minis- 
try, after his immersion and temptation, and was the first 
time after these events, that he had been in the synagogue 
on the Sabbath day, at Nazareth, where he had been raised. 
He went, as his custom was, and stood up to read. He 
found the place in Isaiah, chapter sixty-one, and read the 
first verse and part of the second, and closed the book and 
sat down and suid : " This day is this Scripture fulfilled in 
your ears." The fulfillment was, that the spirit of the Lord 
God was then upon him, (having come upon him at Jordan,) 
because he had annointed him to preach and do these things. 
He went on and preached, and did these things for three 
years and a half; was crucified, arose, and ascended to the 
right hand of God, sent power to his apostles, who, by his 
command, preached throughout all the world, and finished 
the work. 

The Lord and the apostles, then, " preached deliverance 
to the captives," and " set at liberty them that are bruised," 
in the true sense of the prophecy by Isaiah. And though 
there were then 30,000,000 of slaves in the Roman Empire, 
in which they were, and in which they preached, yet they 
did not sa^y that they must be, or ought to be emancipated ; 
nor give them " deliverance," nor " liberty," in the abolition 
sense in which they quote this passage. If they did, let 
brother 0. B. show it ; for, after the thing he was to do has 
been done, the proper way to show what he was to do, is to 

(1) 2 Tlies. ii, 10, 11. 



158 DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 

show what he did. He did not preach abolitionism. If he 
did, show it. On the contrary, he and the apostles gave 
directions to both the masters and the slaves liow to con- 
duct themselves to each other, as masters and slaves, with- 
out telling them that the relation they held to each other 
was sinful, was a violation of the Golden llule, and hence 
should be dissolved. 

J. S. 
September 2(>th, 1862. 



[From the Christian Record of October 14th, 1S62.] 

0. B.'S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE. 



" Ye shall make the trumpet sound throughout all your 
land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim 
liberty, throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof, 
it shall be a jubilee unto you."^ 

In the opening of this discussion, I expressed the opinion 
that the question of slavery was no longer a debatable one — 
that the ar<i;umont of words had been exhtiusted — that those 
who still persisted in maintaining the right of property in 
man, were ])ast conviction by human argument, and that 
God himself, by the logic of the fearful and tci'rit>le events 
transpiring, was working out the solution of the dark problem. 

Events, the most fearful in human history, fraught with 
'the fortunes of the present, and the destinies of the future, 
.have passed, and are now passing, with the velocity of 
thought. In their contemplation, the mind becomes dizzy 
and bewildered, and in their presence the human intellect 
"reels to and fro, and staggers like a drunken man." 
Clouds and darkness, storms and tempests, involve the whole 
area of this, the " conflict of ages." And yet, the just and 
the merciful One "rides upon the tempest and directs the 
storm." God is in all history. How fearfully, how terribly 
is he manifesting himself in this. It is the trumpet of the 

(1) Lev. XXV. 9, 10. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 159 

Lord's jubilee, proclaiming " liberty throughout all the 
land, unto all the inhabitants thereof." Hope has waited 
long for a responsive note from our National authorities to 
this proclamation of the just and holy One, conscious that 
our national life depended upon the character of such re- 
sponse. It has come at last. The response is made in the 
recent proclamation of the President of the United States, 
proclaiming liberty to all tlie slaves, in all portions of the 
national domain, which shall be in rebellion on the first day . 
of January next. Who shall doubt that this national act 
is in harmony with God's purpose, and believing this, we 
may not despair of the salvation of the nation, and th^e pres- 
ervation of the Union. "If God be for us, who shall be 
against us." " And I heard as it were the voice of a great 
multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the 
voice of mighty thunderings, saying Allelulia, for the Lord 
God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad, and rejoice, and 
give honor to him."^ 

The great question of American slavery is solved, not 
by man's argument, or reasonings, but by the inexorable 
logic of events, guided and controlled by the hand of the 
Omnipotent One. The conflict, the storm, and the tempest, 
are' still raging, and for a time may be even more fierce, 
bitter, and intense, than heretofore, but the christian will 
not doubt that there is a glorious day approaching — a day 
of peace, prosperity and happiness to the church, the nation 
and the people. 

More deeply than herotofore, do I feel that the question 
is no longer a debatable one, and have therefore the less in- 
clination to pursue the discussion. I shall, therefore, en- 
deavor to be as brief as possible, in following the line of 
argument which I had proposed to myself. J. S. must ex- 
cuse me,, if I do not give to his fragmentary arguments the 
notice to which he may think them entitled. 

I have, as I think, satisfactorily disposed of his argument 
drawn from the curse of Canaan, and have shown that 
American slavery can find no support from that curse. 

I propose now to notice the Hebrew law of servitude, 
which J. S. claims sanctions chattel slavery among chris- 
tians, and has been neither repealed or annulled. It is a 



(1) Rev. xix, 6, 1. 



160 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

most singular position, for one professing to be a christian, 
to take that the Hebrew law is in force in the kingdom of 
the Lord Jesus. I might cite many passages from the 
christian Scriptures to prove that the Lord himself fulfilled 
the law, and annulled it, nailing it to his cross, and himself 
gave a full and perfect law to his disciples, and that the 
Hebrew law never has been, and never can be, the law of 
the christian kingdom. But to do so, would seem to indi- 
cate a doubt of the intelligence of the reader, for such is 
the whole tenor of the christian Scriptures. So fully and so 
strongly is this taught, that Paul said to those Jewish 
scribes, who, like J. S., still insisted upon the law of Moses, 
" Christ has become of no effect unto you, whosoever of 
you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. ''^ I 
need not say more to the christian reader upon this subject, 
than to ask him to re-read the Gallatin letter. Whatever 
the Hebrew law of servitude may have been, the christian 
can not avail himself of its provisions, to sustain his claim 
of property in man. But the Hebrew law is not liable to 
the reproach of sanctioning chattel slavery, even among the 
ancient Israelites. On the contrary, its provisions were 
humane and benevolent, and wholly antagonistic to such 
claim. 

Good and wise laws are necessarily adapted to the cir- 
cumstances and condition of those for whom they are made. 
When those laws were given to Israel, the Israelites had 
just escaped from a bondage of ages, to a people who at 
the present time would at the best be regarded but as semi- 
civilized. Under their long oppression, the Israelites had 
became even more debased and degraded, and less self-re- 
liant, than the negroes of the South at the present day. 
The people in and around tlie land of Canaan were not suffi- 
ciently advanced in social life, in civil organizations, and in 
the arts and sciences to be entitled to be characterized as 
semi-civilized. We have, perhaps, at the present day, no 
better representatives of these, than the inhabitants of the 
interior of Africa. Thickly settled over all the land of Ca- 
naan, and the surrounding countries, the necessities of civil 
government, for the protection of persons and property, were 
keenly felt by them; but there was no appreciation of what 

(1) Gal.v, 4. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 161 

was or should be the nature, character, or purposes of such 
government. Might ruled, and everywhere, in social life 
and civil organizations, the power of the strongest prevailed 
over the right. The people were separated, and formed 
into almost innumerable petty communities, called kingdoms, 
which were constantly preying upon each other, and were 
sunken in idolatry, and steeped in crime. God proposed to 
use the degraded fugitives from Egypt, to exterminate that 
portion of these people then inhabiting the land of Canaan, 
and to establish there a wider, stronger, and more enduring 
nationality — a civil government founded upon the idea, then 
new and strange to humanity, of the rule of law instead of 
might. In a country not larger than an ordinary State of 
our Union, thirty-two kingdom's were overthrown, and the 
inhabitants exterminated to make room for Israelites. The 
Hebrew laws were made for the Israelites in their inhabi- 
tancy of this country, in the condition and under the cir- 
cumstances above named. God's purpose was not solely 
the establishment of a larger and more enduring nationality ; 
but also, and perhaps principally, the elevation and civiliza- 
tion of the Hebrew race, and theii* preservation as a sepa- 
rate, distinct and peculiar people, as the depositors of his 
Holy Oracles, until the promised Messiah should come. It 
was inevitable that the Israelites would have intercourse 
Yfith the surrounding heathens. Those heathens would seek 
the security and protection of their stronger nationality. 
Humanity required that such intercourse be permitted, so 
ftir as might be, without endangering the religious faith of 
the Israelites, or their distinctive and peculiar national 
character. The Hebrew laws, and especially the laws of 
servitude, were apparently framed for that purpose. 

It will not, I presume, be contended by any one, that the 
law, so far as it related to Hebrev>^ servants, involved the 
idea of chattel slavery, or property in man. That law may 
be found, Ex. xxi, 2-11; Lev. xxv, 89-43, and 47-55; 
*Deut. XV, 12-18. There ar^ also in other portions of Ex. 
xxi, some provision in reference to stealing, killing and 
smiting a servant, which seem to apply specially to Hebrew 
servant?, as none other are named in the connection. 

A Hebrew might be sold for theft, or for debt, or he 
might sell himself, or perhaps his children. These two last, 
although called sales, would be simply contracts for his own 



162 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

service, or the service of his cliildren. However sold, the 
hiw made no distinction in the condition of the Hebrew ser- 
vants. The service could not continue for more than six 
years, unless at the end of that time the servant voluntarily, 
and in solemn form, contracted to serve until the year of 
jubilee next thereafter. He could not bind himself for a 
longer time. The law specifically and positively provid<3d 
for his kind treatment, and for the protection and preserva- 
tion of his manhood, his individuality, and his rights, as an 
Israelite. Certainly no idea of chattel slavery could apply 
to his condition. 

Another class of servants is named in the Hebrew law, 
and these are called bondmen. These in their condition 
approximate nearer to the condition of slaves than any 
other known to Hebrew law. The law in reference to them 
is as follows: "Both the bondmen and the bondmaids, 
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen' that are 
round about you ; of these shall ye buy bondmen and bond: 
maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do 
sojourn among you, of these shall ye buy, and of their 
families that are with you, which they begat in your land, 
and they shall be your possession, and ye shall take them 
as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit 
them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen forever."^ 

This is the whole of the Hebrew law for the establish- 
ment or sanction of bondage in Israel; and perhaps, were 
there no other provisioi^ to modify or explain what is here 
intended, we might infer that something like chattel slavery 
was contemplated by it. This, however, would be an infer- 
ence not fully warranted by the terms of the law. The 
heathen or the stranojer mi<2;ht sell himself, or the strangrer 
might sell his children to the Israelites, provided these chil- 
dren were natives of the land. Such sale was a contract 
for service between the master and the bondman, or the 
parent of the bondman, if a child. Although the claim for 
the service of the bondmen descended to the heir of the 
master, ;yet the obligation to serve did not descend to the 
children of the bondmen. 

The year of jubilee discharged and enfranchised the 
bondman, for the laAv provides as follows : " And ye shall 



(1) Lev. XXV, U-4S. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 163 

hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all 
the land to all the inhabitants thereof, it shall be a jubilee 
unto you.''^ Hence every bondman must be freed at the 
jubilee next after his service began, be that time longer or 
shorter. In these particulars, Jewish servitude differed 
from American slavery in some of the most revolting fea- 
tures of the modern institution. Nor were these th-e only 
differences. 

From the bench of our highest national judicial tribunal, 
it has been declared, that "the African has no rights which 
a white man is bound to respect." Harsh and unfeeling as 
this seems, it is nevertheless legally true in reference to 
slaves, wherever chattel slavery exists. It is the necessity, 
the inevitable sequence of the claim of the right of prop- 
erty in man. Was that true of the Hebrew bondmen? 
Had they no rights under the Hebrew law, which the He- 
brews were bound to respect. The heathen, whether inhab- 
iting other lands, or sojourning among the Israelites, Avere 
called strangers by them, and^are so spoken of in their law. 
That law says in reference to strangers, "and if a stranger 
sojourn with thee, in your land, ye shail not vex him. But 
the stranger that dwelleth with you, shall be unto you as 
one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for 
ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord 
thy God."- " If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen into 
decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he 
be a stranger or sojourner, that he may live with thee."^ 
" One law and one manner shall be for you, and the stranger 
that sojourneth with you.""* " ilear the causes between 
your brethren, and judge righteously between every man 
and his brother, and the stranger that is with him."'' 
" Love ye, therefore, the stranger, for ye were strangers in 
the knd of Egypt."'^ 

These passages, and many more which might be cited, 
indicate the spirit of the Hebrew law, in reference to the 
heathen, the type of the African of our day, and are in 
direct conflict with the spirit of our laws, as indicated by 
the decision above named. I blush for the civilization and 
Christianity of the age, in which such barbarism could find 
utterance in the court of a professedly civilized and chris- 

(1) Lev. XXV, 10. (3) Lev. xxv, 35. (5) Deut. i, 16. 

(2) Lev xix, 33, 34. (4) Numb, xv, 16. (G) Deut. x, 19. 



164 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

tian people. And yet the sentiment is essential to the ex- 
istence of chattel slavery. The fact that the Hebrew law 
was wholly antagonistic to such a sentiment, is conclusive 
proof that chattel slavery wa§ not only not contemplated, 
but was forbidden by that law. The servitude of the bond- 
men was not slavery. It was instituted for the mutual ben- 
efit and convenience of the parties. It commenced in their 
voluntary contract, and its continuance depended upon their 
option. Especially might the bondman terminate it at any 
time, by leaving his master. The Lord forbade his being 
returned. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the .' er- 
vant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall 
dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he 
shall choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best. 
Th )u shalt not oppress him.'"^ 

The relation between master and bondman was one of 
mutual choice, and of mutual benefit and convenience. 
When we consider the civil and social condition of the 
heathen, in and about the land of Canaan, their v, eaknor^s 
and their wants, their insecurity in person and propeny, 
under the prevailing^ rule of might and tyrannical ,force ;>n 
the one hand, and the civil and social con<lition of ihe 
Israelites, possessing a strong nationality, and living under 
the rule or laws, just and equal, alike to the Israelites and 
the stranger, offering to the stranger protection, and the 
enjoyment of civil and social rights on the other hand, it 
would not surprise us to know that the condition of bond- 
men to the Israelites was frequently sought by the weak, 
the defenceless, and the unprotected, among the heathen. 
Especially might they desire this, as a means of becoming 
naturalized and adopted into the tlebrew nation. 

It was not the policy of the Hebrew laws to favor the 
incorporation of the stranger element with the Israelites, 
for the reason that too large an accession of that element 
might endanger the religious faith and the peculiar national 
character of the Israelites. Yet so far as such danger could 
be avoided, such accession was permitted. Hence, the law 
says, " Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy 
brother. Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou 
wast a stranger in his land. The children that are benotien 

(1) Deut. xxiii, 15, 16. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 165 

of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in 
their third generation."^ Hence, if the children of the 
heathen became bondmen to the Israelites, their children 
were entitled to citizenship in the Hebrew commonwealth. 
This seems to have been the general rule. There are, how- 
ever, some exceptions to it named in the law. The Moabites 
and the Ammonites were not entitled ta citizenship for ten 
generations. But it seems that the rule did not refer to the 
heathen females married to Israelites, for Ruth, the great 
grandmother af David, was a Moabitess. 

I may admit here, that by a sort of common law of 
nations — an international law, founded upon the wicked and 
barbarous customs of that age — captives taken in war were 
held and regarded as slaves — the property of the captors — 
and were held for ransom, or for service, or traffic as prop- 
erty. Their persons — their bodies and their souls — were 
regarded as articles of merchandize, and were in later times 
inventoried as articles of traffic in the hands of the mer- 
chants of Tyre. In Ezekiel xxvii, 13, they are thus spoken 
of. But the policy of the Hebrew law was wholly adverse 
to such a system, and its provisions rendered the enslave- 
ment of captives impracticable. The captives of the He- 
brews were sometimes released upon condition of paying 
tribute. Otherwise they were slain and destroyed in obe- 
dience to the requirements of their law. Under certain cir- 
cumstances, the female captives might be spared and retained, 
not, however, as slaves, or even as servants, but for vaves 
for the Israelites, to satisfy the demand of their institution 
of polygamy. The precepts and examples, in reference to 
the treatment of captives, are numerous in the Hebrew law, 
and in Jewish history. It is unnecessary to cite them here. 

The law was given to Israel in an age of great barbarism 
and crime — an age in which the practices and usages of 
slavery obtained almost universally among men. Yet the 
Hebrew law is not liable to the reproach of having sanc- 
tioned that iniquity by any of its provisions. 

There are some other matters which I would like to notice 
in this connection, but I omit them now, as this article is 
already too long. 

0. B. 

(1) Dent, xxiii, 7, 8. 



16G DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, 

[From the Christian Record of October 28tb, 18G2.] 

FIFTH REPLY OF J. S.. 



My dear brother 0. B. has undertaken before the public 
to prove that slavery is sinful. Sin is the transgression of 
the law.^ It is not the transgression of an argument, nor 
of a conclasion from an argument, nor of an inference. 
The LAW of the Lord, by which we mortals are to determine 
a^d ascertain whether anything is sinful or not, is found 
only in the Scriptures, given by inspiration of God. There 
only it is v>'e learn what is sinful or wrong, and become 
thereby reproved and corrected ; and there only it is we 
are instructed in righteousness, or told what is right; and 
by them the man of God — the man who obeys and follows 
God's directions — is thoroughly furnished unto all good 
works, and of course to the avoidance of all evil works.^ 
This man of God who thus does, being thus thoroughly 
furnished, does not need any argument, or inference, or 
philosophical disquisition, to show him what is si'u or what 
is righteousness. He only has to look into this law of the 
Lord contained in the Scripture given by inspiration; it is 
" the perfect law,"^ and is the only perfect law that was 
ever made. Being perfect, it has left nothing to "doubtful 
disputation," or argument, or inference, so far as sin and 
righteousness are concerned. 

As brother 0. B. had not, in his first three numbers, cited 
any law of the Lord of which slavery is a transgression, 
and thereby shown that it was sinful, in my third reply I 
respectfully requested him, in his next number, to cite us to 
tlie law of which slavery is a transgression, if there was 
.such a law. He hasjiisherto failed to do it, and has taken 
no notice of my respectful request ; and in his last number 
thinks that the question is not debatable. As he has given 
no proof to sustain his proposition, it does seem that there 
is no room for debate. And it is a very easy way, and 
perhaps the only Avay, for a disputant who can offer no 
proof to sustain his propositions, to say it is indisputable, 
and stop there. 

But he goes oif into a paroxysm, and speaks of the 

(1) 1 John iii, 4. (2) 2 Tim. iii, 16, IT. (3) James i, 25. 



DISCUSSION or SLAVERY. 167 

"logic of the fearful and terrible events transpiring," as 
being proof; gets "dizzy and bewildered;" seems to think 
that the President's abolition proclamation settles the ques- 
tion, and asks " \Yho shall doubt" that it is an emanation 
from God; shrieks like a maniac in " the conflict, the storm, 
and the tempest" now unhnppily existing in our beloved 
country ; and says that it is God's work. 

*' It was the Puritan meddling with the moral stafus o? 
slavery that inflicted this fearful contest upon us," and not 
the good Lord. x\nd when called upon to sustain the Puri- 
tan assertions as to the moral status of slavery by the good 
word of the Lord, such hallucinations are given us in a 
grave discussion of the question ! 

" Fanaticism is the bane of harmony. It has disturbed 
many States, and overturned many governments. It is one 
of the most difficult social evils to d^al with. It is a growth 
of prosperity, and 3^et gains strength under persecution. 
It often appeals to the most generous prejudices oi human- 
ity ; it often wears the garb of religion and morality; it has 
wonderful powers of proselytism ; it has great capacity to 
make wrong look like right, and to deck errors in the robes 
of truth. It is a terrible apostle of evil. Discord fol- 
lows its lead, and revolution, too often, is the end of its 
career." 

0. B. asserted that God had never granted property in 
man. I produced three instances from the divine volume 
where he had granted property in man — to Shem and 
Japheth, to Israel, and to the civil governments. He tried 
to avoid the first by asserting that the Canaanites served 
Israel, while the Israelites were serving the Egyptians, and 
thus fulfilled and exhausted that grant. I replied that Israel 
was not Japheth, and was only a part of Shem; and that 
the curse of Canaan, to be a servant of servants to his 
brethren, meant being servants to the posterity of Ham, 
and not to Shem and Japheth, or any portion of either, as 
Israel was. To meet this, he says he has "satisfactorily 
disposed of his [my] argument drawn from the curse of 
Canaan!" Well, if this statement is true of my brother 0. 
B. and those who agree with him, abolition intellects are 
easily satisfied. But it is consonant with the assertion that 
the question is not debatable — his proposition is to be taken 
as indisputably true without proof. 



168 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

But he says that I claim that the Hebrew law of servi- 
tude sanctions chattel slavery among the christians ! I 
have claimed no such thing. I quoted the Hebrew law of 
servitude as j?roof that God had granted property in man — 
granted it to Israel — and showed who Israel was since the 
Lord's kingdom was set up. I quoted it as proof of a 
grant of property in man, which he asserted God had never 
made ; and he thus tries to dodge it by changing the issue. 
But I shall not let him do it. I know how slippery those 
who take his position are; and it is my duty, in this grave 
discussion before the brotherhood and the world, to not let 
him dodge out of the issue in that way, without exposing 
the dodge. Whenever those who are constantly asserting 
slavery to be sinful, are impaled upon the sword of the 
Spirit, which is the word of God, they always attempt to 
dodge away from it, by mising another and different issue. 
Brother p. B. is attempting it now, and it is my duty to . 
show it to our readers. 

He asserted that God had not granted property in man. 
I showed that he had through Noah. He tried to dod^ije it 
as above stated; which really was an admission that there 
had been a grant made; but the dodge was, that it was not 
a very large grant, and it had been fulfilled and exhausted. 
I showed that God had granted the heathen to Israel. He 
tries in his last, to dodge that, by raising a new issue, and 
insisting that the laws of God gave to govern the slave 
property created by that grant, were different from the laws 
of the slave States of this Union. "What a weak attempt 
at a dodge ! He admits the grant of property — the very 
thing in issue — but tries to get round the admission, and do 
away its effect, by raising in the mind of the reader a new 
issue, as to whether the laws given by God to govern the 
Hebrew enjoyment of slave property were the same or dif- 
ferent from the laws governing the enjoyment of slave 
property in the United States. That question is not mate- 
rial in determining whether God has granted propert}^ in 
man or not, and in determining whether it is a sin ro hold 
such property, and exercise the rights of such ownership. 

I said that the grants of property in man given through 
Moses had not been revoked by the Lord, and the things 
granted resumed by him ; and I desired ray brother 0. B. 
to cite us to the passage of the divine volume revoking 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 169 

those grants, if there was one. He, in his last, cites us to 
Gal. V, 4, -which reads thus : " Christ is become of no 
effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; 
ye are fallen from grace." Justified is here used in the 
sense of saved ov pardoned; and hence, what Paul here as- 
serts is, that those who seek to obtain pardon of their sins, 
in the manner and by the means prescribed in the law, are 
fallen from grace or favor, which is the means of pardon 
set'out in the Gospel. And this 0. B. quotes as a revoca- 
tion of the grant of property in man, when it only shows 
that there had been a change in the system of pardon or 
justification in the christian dispensation of grace or favor, 
from the system prescribed in the law of Moses for pardon. 
He requests us to read the whole of the letter to the 
Galatians. Well, I have done it, and I hope our readers 
will do the same, and they will see, as I see, that which in- 
spiration teaches plainly, that it was. the '^handtvriii7ig of 
ordinances,'' that the Lord " blotted out " '' and took out of 
the way, nailing them to his cross,"^ and "abolished in his 
flesh the eranity even the lata of commandments concerning 
ordinances,''^ and not grants of property given through 
Noah or Moses. Those grants are not hand-writings of 
ordinances. And there are many other grants besides those 
under consideration, as the grants of the earth and the ani- 
mal creation to man, and of the land of Canaan to Israel, 
&c. None of these were blotted out or taken out of the 
way by the Lord, because they Avere not hand-writings of 
ordinances, nor commandments concerning ordinances. 
But recurring back to things under consideration, the laws 
governing the enjoyment of the slaves granted to Israel, of 
the heathen, were hand-writings of ordinances, and were 
blotted out and taken out of the way, and the laws pre- 
scribed in the apostolic writings for the government of 
masters and slaves, and the- enjoyment and use of slave 
property, were substituted for, and took the place of, the 
laws given through Moses for the government of the rela- 
tion of master and slave, and the use of slave property ; 
and the grant of property in slaves still stood untouched. 
Whether my brother 0. B. has not acquired this " knowl- 
edge of God," that is, knowledge communicated of God, or, 



(1) Col. ii, 14. (2) Eph. ii, 15. 

12 



170 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

if he has, whether he wants to prevent the brotherhood 
from " coming to '^ this " knowledge," it is not material to 
this discussion to have answered ; but it is my duty to see 
that the brotherhood are not kept from this " knowledge," 
under any pretense whatever. It was the hand-writing 
of ordinances that was taken away by the Lord and nailed 
to his cross, and not any grant of property or privilege, 
or prescription of morals set out in the Decalogue, that 
Yv^as taken away by the Lord. Peter, in his speech in ^e 
college of apostles recorded Acts xv, when the question 
was, whether the Gentiles should be circumcised, and keep 
the law of Moses, the hand-writing of ordinances, said, that 
that yoke should not be put upon the disciples, but that 
through the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ — the means of 
pardon prescribed by him — all should be saved, and not by 
being circumcised and keeping the law of Moses. 

Whether the slave laws prescribed through Moses were 
better or worse than the slave laws that were prescribed 
through the apostles, and which took the place of those 
prescribed through Moses, is wholly immaterial to the in- 
quiries. Did God grant property in man ? Is holding and 
enjoying that property sin? Neither is it material whether 
the slave laws of the slave States of the Union are better or 
worse than those of Moses, or of the apostles, in determin- 
ing whether the relation of master and slave is sinful. The 
laws governing the marriage relation in a State may be bad, 
but that does not prove the relation sinful. So the laws of 
a slave State, governing the relation of master and slave, 
may be bad, but that does not prove the relation sinful. 

I am thus particular in stating these matters, that the 
reader may not be misled by the two columns of disquisi- 
tion on the Mosaic slave laws given by 0. B. in his last, 
and to fully explain the effort he is making to change the 
issue. In a good portion of his disquisition he is in error ; 
but it is entirely immaterial to the question in issue in this 
discussion to show it ; and I intend not to be drawn off from 
the issue. But there is one thing that he says that I shall 
notice, because of the gross manner in which the public 
mind has been abused by it. He says : 

"From the bench of our highest national judicial tribunal, 
it has been declared, that 'the African has no rights which 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 171 

the white man is bound to respect/ " and then goes on to 
argue as if the court had so held. 

In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, speaking of public opinion in relation to the negroes, 
that " prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions 
of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, and when the Constitution was formed and adopted," 
stated, as a historical fact, that, 

" They had for more than a century before been regarded 
as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to asso- 
ciate with the white race, either in social or political rela- 
tions; and so far inferior that they had no rights which a 
white man w^as bound to respect." 

The court did not say whether that regarding was correct 
or incorrect; but merely stated it as a historical fact that 
they had been so regarded for more than a century before 
the Declaration of Independence. An(f yet brother 0. B., 
from that, and that alone, affirms what is above stated. It 
has been aflSrmed thousands of times. A cause that resorts 
to such perversions and falsifications, it seems to me, must he 
sinful, 0. B. lets oflT nearly a column upon this false assump- 
tion, as to what the Supreme Court adjudicated. He is too 
good a lawyer not to know that the authority does not sus- 
tain what he assumes that it does. His premises being 
false, of course his argument is at fault, and his conclusions 
erroneous. And more than that, they -are immaterial to the 
question at issue, whether true or false. 

The assertion that God had not granted property in man, 
is a main foundation pillar in the abolition theory. 0. B. 
set out with it, and still asserts it, notwithstanding I have 
shown to the contrary three instances of the grant. I will 
now add these others : that the husband has property in the 
wife, ard the wife in the husband; parents have property 
in their children, and children in their parents; all granted 
by God, and enjoined by him in every dispensation. This 
assumption that God has not granted property in man, like 
every other assumption of the abolition theory, is untrue. 

I again respectfully request and insist that brother 0. B. 
cite us to the law of the Lord of which slavery is a trans- 
gression. The debate is half out now, and it is time that 
he would furnish us some proof of his proposition. 

I also respectfully request him to inform our readers, if 



172 DISCUSSION 0? SLAVERY. 

slavery is a sin, and slaveholders sinners, why are they not 
so specifically denominated in the christian Scriptures? 
Murder, adultery, lying, covetoujness, idolatry, evil-speak- 
ing, evil-surmising, emulation, wrath, strife, sedition, heresy, 
or making sects, &c., are all specifically denounced as sins; 
and murderers, adulterers, liars, covetous, idolaters, back- 
biters, false accusers, .&c., are all specifically denounced as 
sinners. If slavery was a sin, and slaveholders sinners, 
why did not the apostles say so in enumerating sins and 
sinners? There were then, when they wrote, as much 
slavery as there was adultery, and as many slaveholders as 
there were adulterers ; why was one specified and the other 
not, if they were equally sins and sinners ? And so of the 
others. 

And I will say, in all kindness, that those who honestly 
desire to " come to the knowledge of the truth" of God upon 
this, and upon all moral questions, must look to, examine, and 
study his word, his revealed will, and not run off, nor allow 
others to lead them off, into such wild rhapsdies as are 
contained in the first four paragraphs of 0. B.'s last article. 
He, and those who agree with him, have erroneously worked 
themselves into the belief that slavery is sin. His having 
failed so far in this discussion, to show the law that slavery 
is a transgression of, and therefore a sin, shows that he and 
they are in error. But upon that error, for years, " they 
have sown the winds," and alas ! our unhappy country and 
people are now *' reaping the whirlwind."' And whilst the 
storm is raging so fiercely and fearfully, to refer to the fact 
of its existence as proof that they and he are right, is the 
wildest fanaticism, and wholly out of place in a grave reli- 
ligious inquiry after the truth of God upon the subject. 

J. S. 

October 20th, 1862. 

P. S. — Professional duty requiring me to attend the 
court of an adjoining county last week, I was thereby pre- 
vented from getting this number ready in time for to-mor- 
row's Record. J. S. 

(1) Hosea viii, 7. 



EPISODE 



Abolition tactics, and " the moral character," not of 
slavery, but of the abolition conduct that carried out and 
executed those tactics, make it my imperative duty to put 
on record here, and lay before the public certain facts and 
transactions that never should have occurred ; but, having 
occurred, had the law of Christ been followed and acted 
upon, they would have been buried in the tomb of the Cap- 
ulets, and consigned to perpetual oblifion. 

I am sometimes inclined to think that this necessity has 
been imposed upon me in the providence of God, that the 
deformities of abolitionism may be the more fully exposed, 
by having this phase of it exhibited to the public. But 
whether this is so or not, future events must determine. 

As stated in the postscript to ray last article, professional 
duty required my attendance at the Circuit (Jourt of the 
adjoining county of Jay, on the 15th of October, 1862. 
Gross personal outrages were perpetrated upon me there by 
certain sons of Belial, set on and incited by certain political 
demagogues, that drove rae from court, and prevented me 
from attending to my business there According to the old, 
homely, but true proverb, "If I do you a wrong, you can 
forgive me; but if you do me a wrong, you can never for- 
give me," the men who instigated the perpetration of this 
great wrong upon me, could not forgive me for the wrong 
they had done me, but followed it up with a still greater 
wrong. They caused to be published in the Winchester 
Journal^ an abolition hebdomadel paper printed in the 
town where I reside, a grossly scurrilous article concerning 
me and that transaction. It appeared in that paper of the 
date of Friday, the 24th of October. On that day, two of 
the demagogues went to Indianapolis, and on Monday 
morning, October 27th, the scurrilous article appeared in 



174 EPISODE. 

the Indianapolis Journal^ the abolition sess-pool of all the 
political filth and falsehood of Indiana. 

It was too gross to have a place in any decent print, and, 
of course, can not be inserted here. In addition to the fact 
that all its statements of the facts of the transaction were 
false, it falsely charged me with " being drunk, and swear- 
ing worse than an Algerine pirate ;" with " swearing terri- 
bly, and using the most abusive language ;" with saying 
that Shanks and '' all his supporters Avere G — d d — d nig- 
gerites;" with " ringing the changes of the most profane 
vocabulary, denouncing the soldiers also as a set of G — d 
d — d tories, and secessionists and traitors;" and that I 
" now swore more terribly, denouncing Shanks as a traitor, 
and calling the soldiers 'd — d traitors and secessionists,' 
and swore that had (I) been at Mumfordsville when our 
soldiers were taken prisoners, and had the authority, (I) 
would have hung every G — d d — d one of them, as they 
were all d — d traitors. 

I am sorry to have to soil my pages with such filthy 
falsehoods ; but thus m-uch is necessary that the reader may 
understand what follows. 

Upon my demand, the conductors of the Winchester 
Journal^ though somewhat reluctantly, published my de- 
fence in their next succeeding paper, of the date of the 
31st of October, 1862. 

Without any communication whatever with me, either 
orally, by letter, or through third persons, my brother 
Goodwin published in the Uecoi'd of the 4th of November, 
1862, the following: 

DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

Our readers have noticed a discussion of the moral char- 
acter of slavery by 0. B. and J. S., which has been publish- 
ing for some weeks in the Christian Record. The discus- 
sion has been read so far with a good degree of interest by 
many; but just as it was assuming a greater degree of in- 
terest, by approaching the New Testament argument, we 
have seen certain reports in the public prints, touching the 
recent conduct of J. S., which compels us to close our col- 
umns against the further prosecution of the discussion until 
he sets himself right before the religious public. If Bro. 



EPISODK 175 

O. B. wishes to give his views of the New Testament Scrip- 
tures in reference to the duties of masters and servants, 
without referring in any way to the discussion, he may do 
so throuo;h our columns. 

Thus the reader will see, that, notwithstanding I was in 
his editorial house, mansion, or church, and in there as a 
christian, and a 'christian disputant or debater, and with his 
assent and permission as such christian disputant and deba- 
ter, without taking one step, or doing one act required by 
the law of Christ in such cases, as well as by common cour- 
tesy between man and man, even of those who never recog- 
nized the relation of brethren in Christ as existing between 
them, my quondam brother Goodwin so far endorsed these 
foul charges as to publicly in his paper, before the whole 
brotherhood, so far as his paper circulated among them, ex- 
communicate, or rather thrust me out of his religious paper, 
house, mansion or church, and tell my quondam opponent 
to proceed, but to get on into the New Testament, and give 
his (the abolition) vicAvs of what that says about the ques- 
tion under discussion. He, Goodavin, was not only a hisliop 
and an elder in that religious journal, but he was sole bishop, 
elder, and autocrat of it. 

Immediately on the reception of his paper of the 4th of 
November, I sent the following communication to him : 

Elder E. Goodwin, Editor Christian Record: — As I 
presume from what you say in the Record of the 4th inst., 
that it would be offensive to you for me to call you brother, 
I do not so address you; for the Lord commands me to 
^' give none oifence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, 
nor to the church of God ;"^ and my desire at all times is 
to avoid sinning by transgressing his commands, though 
alas! I daily more or less transgress, and thereby sin. And 
were it not that the good Lord has opened up a way and 
given me access to the Father, and is there an Advocate for 
me, whereby I may obtain the forgiveness of my sins thus 
daily committed, I would be ruined and lost, entirely and 
hopelessly. 

You say : " We have seen certain reports in the public 

(1) 1 Cor. X, 32. 



176 EPISODE. 

prints touching the recent conduct of J. S., which compels 
us to close our columns against the further prosecution of 
the discussion, until he sets himself right before the reli- 
gious public." 

Did you know that those " certain reports " were written 
out and circulated in " the public prints," by two political 
demagogues, who are infidels in religion? Did you know 
that " the public prints " that circulated those reports w^ere 
political partizan prints, and hence nought but sess-pools of 
filth and falsehood? Did you pursue the course laid down 
by yourself, under the head of Discipline, in the Address 
on the Government and Discipline of the church, published 
in the Record af October 28th, as proper to be pursued?' 
Did you follow the rules you there laid dow^n, that " in 
dealing with members charged w^ith crime, the first object 
should be to secure to all their rights, and do justice to all ; 
and the final object should be to save the oifender, if possi- 
ble ; and if this he not possible, to save the church from 

(1) That the reader may see the difference between brother Goodwin's statements of 
the law, and bis action in this case, I append the following extracts from that address : 

"On this subject I remark, first, that we may contemplate all the offences claiming the 
attention of the overseers of the church into two classes : first, such as arise from disagree- 
ments between brethren, or where one brother does a wrong to another; and, secondly, 
breaches of the law which affect the whole brotherhood alike, such as profane swearing, 
drunkenness, and such like. Now, in dealing with members charged v/ith crime, the first 
object should be to secure to all their rights, and to do justice to all; and the final object 
should be to save the offender, if 2'>ossihle ; and if this be not possible, to save the 
church from scandal." 

* * * * * * * 

" In cases of the first class named above, the elders should see the parties as soon as pos- 
sible, and endeavor to reconcile them to each other. This should be done without making 
special charges against either. If the matter is not generally known, and the reconcilia- 
tion is effected, nothing more is necessary in the case ; but if it has been noised abroad, 
and the members of the congregation generally, or any considerable number of them know 
that any such difSculty has existed, then the elder presiding at the first meeting of the 
church subsequent to the reconciliation, should announce to the congregation that the 
difficulty had been adjusted, and that the parties are now reconciled to each other." 

* * * * * * * 

"A similar course should be pursued in reference to the second class of offences. If a 
member of the church should be guilty of profane swearing, or drunkenness, or any other 
violation of the law of Christ, the elders, or some one of them, who would be likely to 
have the most influence with him, s?wuld visit him in, kindness, and tell iti love the 
crime that he is said to be gxtilty of, and try to restore him. If he should deny the 
charge, and the report is so generally known and believed* as to bring a reproach upon 
the good cause, let him be requested to meet the elders in their oflicial meeting ; let those 
knowing the facts appear as witnesses, and let the accused brother make his defence. If 
found guilty, an effort should be made to bring him to repentance. If this point is 
gained, he should come before the church, and, either in person, or through one of the 
elders, make confession of his fault, and state his determination to do so no more, upon 
which he shoidd he. forgiven. But if he remain stubborn, and refuse to make satisfac- 
tion for his wrong doing, it should be announced to the church that he has forfeited the 
fellowship of the brotherhood, and can be no longer regarded as a member." And then, 
and not till then, may the offender be publicly kicked out of a religious paper, if he re- 
fuses to go out without being thus publicly expelled. 

* This foul charge in my case was not believed even partially, much less generally, by 
those who knew me. 



EPISODE. 177 

scandal" ? Or, did you from '' certain reports," written' by 
infidels, and circulated by them in filthy partizan prints, 
without taking any of the steps laid down by yourself in 
that address, as being those to be taken to comply with the 
divine injunction, "Let all things be done decently and in 
order," that is to say, without visiting, without trial, with- 
out conviction, without effort to bring to repentance, and 
without any knowledge on my part of what you were about 
to do, excommunicate me, whom you have heretofore pro- 
fessed to regard as a member with you of the body of the 
blessed Lord, and publish that excommunication, not only 
to the church of the brotherhood, but to the world? 

The answer to these questions already exist for eternity. 
I do not ask them to accuse or crireinate you, (for God for- 
bids that I should be an " accuser of the brethren,") but 
because the word of the Lord says : '^ Brethren, if any of 
you do err from the truth, and one convert him, let him 
know that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his 
way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude 
of sins/'^ 

After having thus adjudged, and convicted, and excom- 
municated me, you tell me I may set myself right before 
the religious public. Well, this is a privilege for which I 
am very thankful. It is true that your course, like that of 
the administration for a year past, first to condemn, seize, 
and incarcerate, and then to let the culprit, if he can in 
his dungeon, prove that he is not guilty of anything, is 
similar to the civil and religious liberty enjoyed vfhen the 
Inquisition in religious, and despots in civil governments, 
had universal control of Christendom, and looks to me like 
retrogression to the dark ages, instead of being a still 
brighter effulgence of the Gospel light, and of the liberty 
wherewith Christ has made his people free, and an advance 
of civil liberty in the freest form of government, and hith- 
erto the freest government ever constructed or existing for 
man, in these IJnited States of America, in the afternoon 
of the nineteenth century. But still as I am not blessed 
with transcendental notions of " free speech, free press, 
free soil, free men, and Fremont," I suppose that I must, 
out of courtesy to those who are so endowed, accept it as 
progression in light and liberty, civil and religious. 

(1) James v, 19, 20. 



178 EPISODE. 

I will therefore proceed to state the efforts I h'lve made 
to set myself right before the world, including the religious 
public, since the gross and false libel of me Avas published 
in the Winchester Jeiirnal of the 24th of October, and 
copied into the Lidianapolis Journal of the 27th. 

I prepared an article, which, though the conductors of 
the Winchester Journal winced considerably at having to 
publish it in their paper, they thought proper not to refuse 
to do so. On the day of its publication, I wrote a letter to 
the Indianapolis Journal Company, directed to J. M. Til- 
ford as its President, of which the following is a copy : 

Winchester, Oct. 31st, 1862. 

To the Indianapolis Journal Company : — As the article 
libelous of me was copied from the Witichester Journal of 
the 24tli instant into your paper of the 27th instant, I 
claim, as an act of justice, that my article contained in the 
Winchester Journal of to-day be forthvath copied into your 
paper ; and I hope you will not refuse to comply with this 
request. Respectfully, &c., 

Jer. Smith. 

J. M. Tiiford, Pres. Ind. Journal Co. 

Accompanying which, I sent a private note to Tiiford, 



of which the foUowint: is a 



iD 



copy: 



Bro. Tilford : — I send the enclosed to you as the Presi- 
dent of the Journal Company, and all that I have to say 
now, is, that divine writ informs us that the " serpent cast 
out of his mouth water [lies, vituperation and slander] as a 
flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried 
away by the flood," and I, as one of the least among '' the 
remnant of her seed,"^ have to receive my portion of that 
flood of calumny, it seems. 

May the good Lord, out of his abundant mercy, pardon 
all who have been concerned in doing me this great wrong, 
and thereby sinning, is my prayer. 

Afl'ectionately, &c., 

Jer. Smith. 

(1) Rev. xii, 15-ir. 



EPISODE. 179 

My article not having appeared in the Journal, on the 
5th of November I sent the following: 

Winchester, JSTov. 5th, 1862. 

J. M. TiLFORD, Pres. Iiidianapolis Journal Co. — Sir: — 
On the 31st ult. I sent a request to the Journal Company, 
directed to you as its President, that my reply to the gross 
and false libel of me, published in the Winchester Journal 
of the 24th of October, and copied into your paper of the 
27th of October, be copied into your paper as an act of jus- 
tice to me. It has not yet been done. I write this to again 
urge that it be done ; for I am anxious to avoid the neces- 
sity of having to bring a suit for libel against the Journal 
Company. Whether all sense of truth and justice has left 
the earth, and law is dethroned, and only fraud, force, and 
anarchy exist in our unhappy country, I am not able to 
say ; but I really fear that it is so. 

Respectfully, &c., 

Jer. Smith. 

My article has not yet appeared in the Journal, nor have 
I received any communication from them; which fully 
shows the fairness, uprightness, and christian spirit and 
conduct of the conductors of that sheet ; and demonstrates 
the facilities they have afforded me to set myself right be- 
fore the world and the religious public; and the extreme 
anxiety they have to make amends, and undo the wrong 
they have done me. Tilford is a bishop of the church at 
Indianapolis ; the foreman and the clerk in the Journal 
office are deacons of that church; and I suppose they have 
seen the divine injunctions, " to speak evil of no man,"^ and 
" to do justly, and love mercy. "^ Paul had " perils amongst 
false brethren."" Is it possible that I am entitled to the 
honor of suffering as he did? 

As your paper is printed by that company, and your 
office is in their building, I think it probable that you had 
knowledge of these things as they transpired. 

As you have brought the matter to the notice of your 
readers, by publishing your condemnation and excommuni- 
cation of me upon the false libel, without notice, or hearing, 

(1) Tit. iii, 2. (li) Micah vi, 8. (3) 2 Cor. xi, 26. 



180 EPISODE. 

or trial, or attempt to reclaim me, I herewith enclose a copy 
of my published .defence, and request you to lay it, with 
this communication, before your readers. And I hope you 
will comply with this request. If you do not, I shall have 
to find some other means of getting them before the public. 
For, if the Lord spares me, I intend to have all these 
things laid before the public in some form ; for all is known 
to the Lord, and will be known to all at the great day, and 
had as well be made known to the public now, though it 
may be some time yet before they get there. If so, I must 
exercise, as I am commanded to do, the christian virtue, 
PATIENCE. I confess, however, here, that in this case it is 
hard to exercise it. But I am commanded to, and will, "h t 
patience have her perfect work."^ " Some men's sins do go 
before, and others they follow after." 

It may be, and I have no doubt is, very convenient to 0. 
B. and those who agree with him, to have the discussion 
choked down now ; for he was getting into a very tight 
place. But truth is mighty, and will finally prevail, though 
she travels in a slow coach, while falsehood, slandei', and 
detraction, run on the wings of the wind. 

It is proper to say here, in conclusion, tliat the chai-ge 
of drunkenness made against me in the lible, was not 
noticed in my published defence herewith enclosed, for good 
and sufficient reasons, which I have given, and will here- 
after give, when proper. All that is necessary or proper 
here and now to say, is, that the charge is false. 

Repeating the prayer, " May the God and Father of all, 
out of his abundant mercy, forgive all who have been con- 
cerned in doing me this great wrong, and thereby sinning," 
I am. Very respectfully, &c., 

Jer. Smith. 

Novemher 10 th, 1862. 



[From the Winchester Journal.— Enclosed in the foregoing.] 

TO THE PUBLIC. 

An article in the Winchester Journal of last week, abusive 
of me, an humble citizen in the private vv^alks of life.'quietly 
attending to my own business without molesting or disturb- 
ing any one in attending to his, is so utterly false, that I 

(1) James i, 4. 



EPISODE. 181 

vleem it proper to notice it, lest my silence should be taken 
as an admission of the truth of the statements contained 
in it. 

That I swore worse than an Algerene pirate, or swore at 
all, or used profane language, is fcilse. That I said that 
Shanks and all (or any) of his supporters were traitors and 
niggerites, is false ; but I said that all the niggerites had 
voted for him, which all know is true. I did not speak about 
soldiers, nor use the word soldier in either of the conversa- 
tions hereinafter mentioned; and, of course, did not call 
them tories, traitors, or secessionists ; and I did not say a 
word about Mumfordsville, nor hanging soldiers, nor hang- 
ing any body else. All this was manufactured out of the 
whole cloth at the time, by those whose object it was to 
rai^e a mob. 

I v/ent to Portland on the 15th day of October, the day 
after the election, to attend to some professional business in 
court. When I arrived there, knowing that Mr. Black, the 
landlord, was a Democrat, and, of course, an anti-Shank 
man, I jocularly remarked as I drove up, as I have heard 
remarked perhaps a hundred times in my life, " Is this a 
Shank tavern? If it is, I guess I'll go farther.'^ Mr. 
Black, coming up to my buggy, remarked, " I guess it's all 
right, Judge; get out." I again jocularly remarked that I 
did not want to patronize an abolition house. 

Some of the persons around (none of whom I knew) 
angrily began to denounce me as a secessionist, &c., and I 
denounced abolitionists back again, and within a minute of 
the time I stopped my buggy, Mr. Underwood came up to 
my buggy, and said that he was Marshal of the county, and 
warned me- how I talked. This fired me up, and I said ex- 
citedly, ''Well, you had better arrest me and take me to 
Fort Lafayette; I dare you to do it." He mildly replied, 
that we datti to do things that we do not want to do; and 
to get out and put up. His manner and language at once 
calmed my excitement, and I remarking, " Let these scoun- 
drels not bother me Chen," or " keep away from me," or 
"let me alone;" I do not remember which way I said it; 
got out of my buggy, and went into the sitting-room of the 
hotel. 

Having sat there some twenty minutes, I Avent to the 
court-house, and remained till the court adjourned. Mr. 



182 EPISODE. 

• 

Hawkins, the clerk, came and saluted me, and I chatted 
with hina till all had left the court-house, when I returned 
to the hotel. 

After supper, in the dusk of the evening, I started out to 
the stable to see my horse, as it is my custorft. Mr. Joseph 
Maddox met me on the way, and commenced talking with 
me about politics, he urging Republican views, and I sus- 
taining Democratic views. The conversation was mild and 
respectful by both of us, and continued some five or ten 
minutes, perhaps longer. In the meantime, a considerable 
crowd gathered around us, when a young man at my left 
hand said, " Old man, you must hush up.'' Another imme- 
diately, at my right hand, said with an oath, " You must 
leave." Maddox immediately crouched down and slid away 
from between them. I was surprised, but was immediately 
convinced that there was concert among them to do me 
personal violence. The two men who tlrus first spoke I did 
not know, and they were dressed in soldier's clothing. 
About a half dozen voices immediately spoke up. I stepped 
a few paces to the fence, and placed my back against it. I 
was wholly unarmed. The cries were, "you must leave in 
twenty minutes;" " where's a watch;" "hang him;" "ride 
him on a rail;" where's a rail," &c. I said I had come to 
court to attend to my business in court, and 1 had a right 
to stay and attend to it. "You shan't;" "let it go un- 
done ;" " you called us secessionists," &c., were halloaed 
back in the crowd. I continued, and said that I had started 
to the stable to see to my horse, and came across Mr. Mad- 
dox, and stopped and talked with him ; and I have said 
nothing disrespectful of any of you — which was true. All 
this transpired within two minutes of time. A kind of lull 
then occurred. I saw a little opening in the crowd to my 
left hand, towards the house. I started to the house ; the 
second or third step I was tripped and fell. A friend, 
whose voice I knew, stooped over me and told me to get up, 
and come with him into the house. I did so, and at the in- 
stance of friends, I was conducted to a place of conceal- 
ment, where I remained an hour or more, I should guess. 
A friend then came and told me that my buggy was ready, 
and it was agreed that I should get into it and go to Mr. 
Jonas Votaw's. I went with him to my buggy, surrounded 
by a crowd, got into it, and drove off. Soon after I crossed 



EPISODE. 183 

the creek, Mr. Votaw came riding on behind me- We went 
on to his house, put up our horses, and I stayed all night. 

Next morning, after breakfast, while the mail was being 
opened by Mr. Votaw and lady, the soldiers' wagons came 
along, and stopped in the road opposite the house. One of 
them came in whom I knew to be the second one who had 
spoken on the night previous at my right hand, but did not 
know his name. lie stayed in some five or ten minutes, 
eyeing me sitting in the public room, and then went out; 
and after a while they started off. Had he or any of them 
then offered violence to me, I should have killed thenio My 
friends had furnished me arms, and I then had them. Had 
I hud them on the previous night, I should have kiJled two 
men. I am glad that I did not have them ; for God knows 
that I do not vv^ant to shed the blood of a fellow creature. 

Brave men do not, fifteen or twenty of them together, 
attack a single unarmed man, whether they wear soldier- 
clothes, shoulder-straps, or have held a seat in Congress. 
Cowards only are cruel to the weak and defenceless. 

I remained publicly at Mr. Votaw's till after dinner. By 
the advice of friends, whose counsel it was my duty to re- 
spect, I did not go back to Portland, but came home in the 
evening, arriving there before dark. 

As to the contemptible lies about John Bowden, in the 
article : 

I sold him a farm in Jay county three years a^^o last 
March. He has paid but about §80 on it, and has had the 
use of it for four crops, worth ^400 ; and has sold 'off and 
destroyed the timber. lie promised me a year ago, when 
I took judgment for §1,086 92 of the purchase money then 
due and unpaid, that he would pay §400 by Christmas, and 
I agreed to wait a year for the balance without security, if 
he made the payment; and it was so entered in the record 
of the judgment. He did not make the paym.ent, and I 
sued out execution, and it was returned no property found. 
In May last he promised me to pay §500 by harvest, or 
surrender the title-bond without costs or trouble. He did 
not do it, and I wrote twice to him afterwards, and could 
get no answer from him, nor the bond. About the first of 
September, I had an offer for the land at a loSs to me of 
only about §200, and the offer was to stand open till Christ- 
mas. I again wrote to Bowden, reminding him of what he 



184 EPISODE. 

had promised, and requesting him to surrender the bond, or 
I should take steps at the fall court to sell out his equity. 
He failed to answer, and about that time volunteered. I 
brought the suit ; went out to take my decree and sell out 
his equity, and get my property into my possession, which 
I had a clear, legal, and equitable right to have. lie, with 
the assistance of two others, got up the mob, resulting as 
above stated, notwithstanding the court and all its officers 
were present. The law was powerless in protecting me in 
my legal rights, and afforded me no protection. Bowden 
got the decree rendered, giving him to July next before a 
sale of his equity can be made, ivUhout Ms ijiving any secu- 
rity whatever for the purchase-rtioncy, all being due. He 
will not pay it, nor a cent of it, and is utterly insolvent and 
worthless, and will get nearly another year's use of the 
farm, making $500 in all. I lose a sale, and by that time, 
the farm will probably not sell for more than half what is 
due me, including the costs which he has compelled me to 
make. Thus he affected the object he had in raising the 
mob. Had I dreamed it possible he could have so succeeded, 
I should have gone back to court, though I should have been 
thereby put under the-necessity of killing three or four per- 
sons, and perhaps of losing my own life. And now, in ad- 
dition to all this, to try to cover up these irross outrages 
perpetrated upon me, this torrent of abusive falsehood is 
published to overwhelm me if possible. 

I had no personal hostility to Mr. Shanks. I had poUdcal 
hostility to him for two reasons : 1st. He is v/holly unqual- 
ified to fill a seat in Congress. 2d. He sustained measures 
in Congress utterly subversive and destructive of the Con- 
stitution and the Union, both of which I am very anxious 
to preserve for my posterity as I have enjoyed them. And 
when my country's all is at stake, as it now is, in a choice 
between its interests and personal friemlships, I hesitate 
not a moment to take my stand for my country. 

Gross and groundless as these outrages are to me per- 
sonally, I sorrow less for them on that account, than because 
th'^y add another to the many evidences we have of the 
rapid speed with which the Constitution and the laws are 
being overturned and destroyed, and anarchy, internecine 
strife and the reign of terror are being inaugurated in our 
beloved but unhappy country. The result of the recent 



EPISODE. 185 

elections !:;ive me a gleam of hope that daylight is coming. 
Had abolitionism succeeded ftgain in the elections this faH, 
our beloved Union, and the Constitution that forms it, and 
the Goverrniieiit, would have been hopelessly gone. The 
abolitionists and the secessionists are but the two blades of 
the same pair of shears, tliat have been, and are, shearing 
this Union and Government to shreds. Either without the 
other would be powerless and harmless. But to<iether, how 
potent for mischief they are, and have been I This I have 
said, and warned my countr^^men of, for years. And now 
it is shown by what an intelligent rebel officer, taken prisoner 
at the battle of Antietam, recently said, as reported in the 
Bosfo7i Courier, an old line Whig paper. lie said : 

" I tell you there is not one thing old Jeff, prays for so 
much as to have Wadsworth put in Governor of New York. 
I was in Richmond when the papers with the nomination 
came, and they all said there could not have been a more 
lucky nomination. '"^ ^ ^^ * The abolitionists have 
got control of the North just as Ave have of the South, and 
they don't want us any more than we do them ; and what 
persons on both sides don't w^ant, they won't have. If 
Wadsworth should be beaten, and Andrev should be beaten, 
and the rest of them, it would just show that a majority of 
the North want us back in the old Union, and there are so 
many now in the South who want the same thing, we should 
have to come back. But I tell you, the abolitionists will 
have it all their own way, and your Northern old line^ 
Unionists and their relatives down South, will have to cave 
in." 

Thank God! the abolitionists have not had it all their own 
way so far, and every patriot and true Union man prays 
God that they may not have it all their own way in the 
elections to come off next week, so that old line Unionists, 
of whom I am proud to know that I am one, and always 
have been, will not have to cave in either North or South,, 
and our glorious Union, and the Constitution, formed by 
the fithers of the llevolution, and sealed with their blood',, 
and the Government created by that Constitution, will b© 
saved from their present extreme peril, and handed down to 
our posteiity as we received them from our fathers. And 
I rejoice, that I, even I, in my humble and obscure private 
position, ''am counted worthy to suffer &hame " fK)r being 
13 



186 EPISODE. 

an old line Unionist, and trying to bring about a consum- 
mation so devoutly to be wished. 

Jer. Smith, 
October 27th, 1862. 

\_See Appendix.~\ 

By letter of the date of November 17th, 1862, Elder 
GooDvviN declined publishing'the foregoing articles, on the 
ground that they were "too political in their character" 
for his columns ; when in truth, at that time, and before, and 
since, at least two columns of every issue of his paper, were 
exclusively political, while much of the professedly reli- 
gious matter of his paper was terribly mixed v.ith politics. 
The charge itself was political, made by politicians, in po- 
litical papers, for political purposes. This political matter 
was made the ground of excommunicating me from the 
Record, and forsooth, the Record can not publish my side 
of the affair, because it is political ! 

Paul was frequently mobbed by incitemont of hypocrites, 
existing then as well as now, on charges of " disloyalty," 
and of being '-a traitor," saying there was "another king, 
one Jesus," &c.; but the christians of that day protected 
him and ser»t him away,^ instead of thrusting him out, and 
requiring him to set himself right before the community. 
Those christians, however, were not "philanthropists" and 
"humanitarians," such as modern abolitionists are. 

In the Christian Record of the date of Kovember 18th, 
1862, the following article appeared : 

DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 



Proposition — Slavery is Sinful 



0. B. s sixth affirmative. 



" If the son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be 
free indeed."^ 

I regret that there should have been any occasion for 
breaking off the discussion between J. S. and myself. Un- 
der the circumstances I feel much embarrassed in attempt- 
ing to proceed further in the consideration of the subject. 

Cl) Acts xvii, 6-10, and 13-15; xix, 24-41 ; xx, 1. (2) John viii, 36. 



EPISODE, 187 

But as the argument would be incomplete without some ref- 
erence to the christian Scriptures, and to those teachings of 
th€ apostles, Avhich are frequently cited to prove the right- 
eousness of slavery, I conclude to avail myself to some ex- 
tent of the privilege which the editor of the Record offers 
me. I can not, however, avoid an occasional reference to 
the preceding discussion, as ray arguments in it are parts 
and portions of the main argument, to prove the sinfulness 
of American slavery, and are regarded by me as prelimi- 
nary to the consideration of the teachings of the cliristian 
Scriptures upon that subject. As the matter now stands, 
I shall make no effort to elaborate the different points of 
the argument, but simply indicate them, and leave them to 
the reflection of the reader. There are some things in the 
articles of J. S. which I had purposed noticing in the pro- 
gress of the debate, but as the debate is closed, it is but 
right and proper that I pass them without notice. 

I think I have shown, that God in no grant of property 
to man, has granted the right of property in man, but that, 
on the contrary, he has clearly reserved that right to him- 
self. The only cases in the Old Testament Scriptures, un- 
der which such a grant has been claimed, are the Noachian 
curse of Canaan, and the Hebrew law of servitude. These 
1 have examined separately, and have, as I think, satisfac- 
torily shown that the idea of chattel slavery is not involved 
in either of them. I have shown further, that in the He- 
brew law that condition is clearly excluded. A further ar- 
gument to sustain this position might be drawn from the 
social condition and anti-slavery sentiments of the Jews in 
the times of Christ and of his apostles. The permanent 
laws and institutions of any people have a controlling influ- 
ence in forming their social condition and moral sentiments. 
This is peculiarly true of the Jews. In speaking of them, 
of the time of the apostles, our Bro. Campbell, in some of 
his writings upon the subject of slavery, has said that they 
were a nation of abolitionists. Any one who studies their 
social condition, in the light of the New Testament history, 
and of the parables of our Lord, will be satisfied that chat- 
tel slavery had no existence in Jewish society, and that the 
moral sentiment was adverse to it. This, by clear inference, 
is one lesson taught by the parable of the prodigal son. 
The purpose of the parable required, that the prodigal, as 



188 EPISODE. 



the result of his follj and crime, should be reduced from a 
high social position— a condition of ensc and affluence— to 
the lowest most dependent, and most degraded condition 
known m Jewish society; and that in sud^ condition, the 
repentant prodigal shouhl be so humbled as to desire, and 
be wdling to accept the lowest and most humble position in 
society, which, in the regard of the Master, was consistent 
with personal manhood, and the right and proper dischar.re 
ot the duties of man to himself, to humanity, and to Go7l 
Ihesethat purpose required, and if these points are not 
reached m the representation of the life of the prodi-al 
tlie parable itself is a failure, for want of point and fo?ce.'. 
liut the parable is not a failure. It was uttered bj the in- 
tallible One; and while involving a moral lesson of the 
deepest import to humanity, delineates faitlifully and truly 
the then conditions of Jewish society. The prodigal, who 
foolishly and wickedly took from his father an advancement 
ot his whole portion of the paternal estates, - and ^^athered 
all together, and took his journey into a, far couiftry, and 
there wasted his substance with riotous living," was reduced 
to the lowest, most dependent and degraded condition of 
oumanity known in Jewish society, which is thus described- 
" And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that coun- 
try, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine And he 
would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine 
did eat, and no man gave unto him."' Here is described 
the lowe&t condition of humanity known in Jewish society 
It was truly low enough. It involves, to some extent, the 
sacrifice of personal manhood and the ability to dischar-e 
his proper duties to himself, to humanity, and to God It 
was below the condition of a hired servant, for he labored 
not for wage's, but merely to sustain existence. It was not' 
however, the condition of a slave. No man" held property 
Hi him. He couhl srill dispose of his own person, and coii- 
trol his own actions, as his subsequent determination and 
action clearly show. That condition, however, was neither 
proper nor right for maij, in the regard of the Master. It 
must have been regarded as sinful, for the prodigal, in hi& 
deepest repentance and humility, is represented as desirin-r 
to escape it, and to have the position of a hired servant! 
A^hired servant, then, occupies the lowest condition of hu- 



(1) Luke XV. 



EPISODE. 189 

manitj, approved by the Master. Humility can descend no 
lower. Whatever is beneath that, is personal debasement. 
Since the primeval cur^e, labor has been, and still is, the 
basis of all human society. Compensated labor is the basis 
of all good and virtuous society, and is so recognized by 
the Master in the parable of the prodigal. Society built 
upon the basis of enforced and uncompensated labor, is 
necessarily vicious and corinpt. 

I have had occasion in a former number to speak of the 
meaning of the word servant, as used in common version of 
the Scriptures. I trust that the reader will recollect that 
argument. It applies perhaps as well to the use of the 
term in the New as in the Old Testament. Besides this, 
the New Testament Scriptures incidentally furnish Sume in- 
dication of the import of the term in New Testament use, 
which show very clearly that chattel slavery is not meant 
by it, or included in it. A slave, in legal contemplation, is 
like other property, held by a perpetual tenure, and is, in 
legal phrase, vested in the owner, his heirs and assigns for- 
ever. Of the servant the Lord said: "And the servant 
abideth not in the house forever; but the son abideth ever."' 
Perpetuity of tenure is an essential quality of slave prop- 
erty, and this saying of the Lord shows clearly that a ser- 
vant had not this essential characteristic of the condition of 
a slave. 

Not only in this particular, but also in the social condi- 
tion of the servant, and in the character and qualities of 
his service, the Scriptures show that there is a clear and 
wide distinction between him and a slave. The slave is an 
abject, holding no position in human society, regarded as a 
thing, a species of property, an article of traffic, a menial 
and a servile, without independent volition, without man- 
hood, put to the lowest uses of humanity. This is not the 
condition of a servant, or the character or quality of his 
service, in the view of the apostle Paul, as shown by the 
following language : '' Now I say that the heir, as long as 
he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant^ though he be 
Lord of all, but is under tutors and governors until the time 
appointed of the Father."^ This shows that in his social 
condition of personal manhood, and in the character and 
quality of his service, the servant did not differ from the son; 

(1) John viii, 35. (2) Gul. iv, 1, 2. 



190 EPISODE. 

hence he could not have been a slave — could not have been 
held and regarded as property. 

Without attempting to define, these two passages illus- 
trate the meaning of the word servant as used in the New 
Testament Scriptures. That meaning is wholly inconsistent 
with the idea of chattel slavery, and such an idea could not 
have been involved in the use of the term. This fact is 
well worthy of being remembered in the consideration of 
this subject. 

In some translations later than the common version, the 
word slave is used in some places in which the word servant 
occurs in the common version. It is not necessary for me 
to question the correctness of these later translations. 
Possessin<T no knowledoje of the oriojinal languaore, I am not 
qualified to decide upon their merit; but if correct, they 
afford additional evidence of the truth of the proposition 
under discussion. In the progress of society, there have 
been enlargements of the fields of thought, and a closer 
and more critical analysis of things and of ideas, requiring 
improvement in living languages, as well by the addition of 
new words as by using the old ones in a variety of secon- 
dary and figurative meanings. The English language, 
more than any other, has been thus improved. 

While the word slave retains its precise, primary and lit- 
eral meaning, it has, since the time of James II, obtained 
use in a secondary and figurative sense. Hence, we say of 
a person under the controlling influence of wicked, degra- 
ding and overmastering habits, that he is the slave of such 
habits. Of this character are the expressions, the slave of 
sin, the slave of lust, the slave of passion, &c. Of this 
character, too, are all the cases in which the word is so 
used in the later translations. Whenever and wherever 
this word is used in the secondary and figurative sense, it 
expresses the wickedness and dej^radation of the condition 
it represents. In this sense slavery is sinful. The fact 
that the word is so figuratively used, proves clearly that in 
its literal sense and primary meaning, it involves the idea 
of sin, that the slavery under discussion is sinful, for the 
word is never used to characterize the influence of correct 
and righteous habits and feelings. The propriety and cor- 
rectness of the use of the term in the figurative sense rests 
wholly upon the admitted sinfulness of slavery in the literal 



EPISODE. 191 

and primary me ming of the word. This argument is con- 
clusive, and siiii^ly and unsupported by other argument, 
would establish the truth of the proposition. 

I purpose to attempt the examination and consideration 
of those teachings of the christian Scriptures, which are 
relied upon to sustain slavery, but can not do it now, as it 
would give this article too great a length. I therofore re- 
serve that matter for a future number. 

0. B. 

Upon the reception of the paper containing the foregoing 
article, I wrote and sent to brother Butler the following 
letter : 

Winchester, Nov. 19th, 1S62. 

Ovid Butler, Elder of the Christian Church at Indi- 
anajjolis^ and President of Board of Directors of the N. W. 
C. University — Dear Brother: — The plan to get rid of me 
as a disputant and respondent, in the discussion of slaver}'-, 
and to neutralize the divine truths brought to bear upon the 
question by me, and to stop the ears of tlie brotherhood and 
public against them, is fully understood, and shall, if the 
Lord will, be thorouglily exposed. 

The blessed Lord said: -'The disciple is Hot above his 
master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the 
disciple to be as his master^ and the servant as his lord. If 
they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how 
much more shall they call them of his household? Fear 
them not, therefore ; for there is nothing covered that shall 
not be revealed; and hid that shall not be knoivn.'^^ '• For 
there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested ; neither 
was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad *'* 
'' Beware ye [the disciples] of the leaven of the Pharisees,. 
ivhieh is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that shall; 
not be revealed ; neither liid, that shall not be known. 
Therefore, whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness, shall bo 
heard, in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the 
ear iyi the closets, shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."^- 

It is better for \ou who aspire to be the leader among 
the brotherhood of the Northwest, and who really are the 
leader of the faction of the brotherhood of the Northwest,, 

(1) Matt X, 2i-26. {2) Mark iv, 22; Luke viii, 17, (3) Luke xii, 1-J, 



192 EPISODE. 

who are abolitionizod ; it is better for the faction of ^vhom 
you are thus the leader; it is better for the entire brother- 
hood, and the American people; it is better for the cause 
of the blessed Lord and Master of us all; and it is better 
for the truth of God, that you open the columns of the 
Record^ and proceed with the discussion to its conclusion. 
But I have no expectation that it will be done. 

I received last night the Record of yesterday, in which I 
find your number six, in which you say " the debate is 
closed." If so, why do you continue it? Your continuance 
of it, after your respondent is silenced, is an admission by 
you, that you had failed to sustain your proposition in his 
presence. And now, after he is silenced, you wish to try 
to make the readers of the Record believe that your propo- 
sition is true. 

As you say the debate is closed, 1 w^rite this letter to 
know whether or not you will join in the publication of the 
debate in book form, according to the preliminary stipula- 
tions? An early answer is requested. 

Very respectfully, &c., 

Jer. Smith. 

To which I received the following reply: 

Forest Home, :Nov. 28th, 1862. 

Bko. Jer. Smith : — I duly received yours of the 19th inst.» 
•but have not been able to reply sooner. I am but little dis- 
posed to notice the groundless charges and insinuations 
against me which yours contains. I am aware that any per- 
son who could make them with no better evidence to sustain 
them than you have, would not be ant to credit their simple 
denial. I will say, hawever, that I am not responsible for the 
closing of the debate between us. That responsibility rests 
with brother Goodwin, who, as you well know, controls his 
own paper; and you know, too, if you will recollect the 
past, that he is not liable to the charge of being inliuenced 
by me. I spoke of the debate beiiig closed as a fact pre- 
viously announced by the editor of the Record^ and without 
any reference to my own wishes upon the subject. I may, 
however, say in all frankness, that I think brother Goodwin 
did right in thus closing the debate until you should vindi- 
.-cate yourself against the charges made against you in th^e 



EPISODE. lyy 

public papers. Those chnro-es are serious ones to bo made 
against a man professing to be a disciple of Jesus. Unan- 
swered by you, they would very naturally, though peidiaps 
unjustly, affect any argument you might use in the debate. 
If indeed you are as you suppose, advocating divine truth, 
it is important to a proper and fair consideration of your 
arguments, that you first dispose of these charges. Whether 
it be a truth oi- error, righteousness or sin, that you advo- 
cate, I do not desire the advantage in the argument which 
the existence of those charges unanswered, or not satisfac- 
torily answered, would give me. It would seem to me, 
therefore, that you have no reason to complain that the de- 
bate is closed, or suspended, until you can resume it with 
nothing extrinsic of the debate to prejudice your arguments. 
Isor can you complain that I have interposed an article 
which will give you the right to resume the argument when- 
ever you shall place yourself right in reference to those 
charges. I do not doubt that brother Goodwin is not only 
willing, but anxious, that you should vindicate yourself, 
and, that done, would open the columns of the Record to 
you. I trust that you can, and hope that you will, do this 
in time to resume the discussion before the readers of the 
liecord shall have forgotten all about it. I propose waiting 
awhile for such resumption by you ; but should you fail to 
accomplish it, I shall probably desire, in some form, to close 
my argment. 

It is somewhat remarl\able, that a person so strongly op- 
posed to fiction as you profess to be, should deal so largely 
ip it. What you say of my leadership or aspirations for 
the leadership among the Northwestern brethren, or any 
portion of them, is most decidedly of this character, so pal- 
pably so, that it needs no notice froni me. 

I need not reply to your proposition about the publica- 
tion of the debate, until advised that you will make no effort 
to resume it. Whether you resume it or not, rests with 
you and Bro. Goodwin. I can have no control over the 
decision of that question. 

I may say now, as I said at first, that I have not contem- 
plated the publication of the debate; but it is possible that, 
at the proper time for deciding, I may come to a different 
conclusion. !tours, &c., 

Ovid Butler. 



194 EPISODE. 

I then sent him the foUoAving : 

Winchester, Dec. 1st, 1862. 

Bro. Ovid Butler: — Your letter of the 28th ult. is just 
received, in Avhich you say: "I say now, as I said at first, 
that 1 have not contemphited the publication of the debate; 
but it is possible that, at the proper time for deciding, I 
may come to a different conclusion." 

Now is the proper time : and 1 want a categorical answer, 
yea or nay. Fraternally, &c., 

Jer. Smith. 

P. S — I write this, presuming that you know what has 
passed between brother Goodwin and me, and the Journal 
Company and me; which presumption I have no doult is 
correct. J. S. 

And received the following : 

Forest Home, near Indianapolis, Dec. 6th, 1S62. 

Buo. Jer. Smith: — I have yours of the 1st, asking ,i 
categorical answer to your proposition about publi>hii)g ihu 
debate, &c. You do not say how much you desire to pub- 
lish — whether you would include the preliminary articles, 
or whether you would wish to add other and extrinsic mat- 
ter. Were I disposed to unite in the publication, these 
would be necessary inquiries. 

I see no good that can result either to you or me, b}-" tlie 
publication of the debate in its present form ; and it would 
seem that you have abandoned the idea of the discussion 
being again resumed. 

Y^ou are mistaken in the presumption that I knew what 
has passed between you and brother GooDVfiN, or between 
you and the Journal Company, in reference to the charges 
against you. I have read what has been published. Be- 
yond that, I have been told that you had written some 
lengthy articles both for the Record and for the Journal^ 
which the editors had not published for the reason, as I un- 
derstand in each case, that they were too lengthy, and the 
matter regarded as irrelevant to anything which had ap- 
peared against you in the respective papers. I may be 
mistaken in this ; but it is the impression I got at the time. 



EPISODE. 195 

Your communications were not submitted to me. My ad- 
vice was not sought, nor was it given, as to their publica- 
tion. An<l so you will perceive that your presumption is 
not sustained by the facts. 

I would much prefer that you would put yourself right 
before the public, and resume the discussion ; but if you 
uecitle not to attempt that, you can let me know just how 
much and how little you desire to publish, and I will answer 
;is directly to your proposition as it is in my nature to do. 

Yours fraternally, 

Ovid Butler. 

To which I sent the following response : 

Winchester, Dec. 10th, 1862. 

Bro. Ovid Butler: — Y^ours of the 6th instant is just 
received. 

■ Of course, in the published debate, I " w^mld include the 
preliminary articles;" and if you will go on in manuscript, 
we will finish out the whole ten numbers to each side, and 
include them. 

Instead of m}^ abandoning the idea of going on to the 
conclusion of the discussion, I v>^as publicly thrust out of 
the forum, the door slammed in my face, and you told to go 
on, which you commenced doing. And you "say in all 
frankness, that I (you) think Bro. Goodwin did right in 
thus closing the debate." I shall not again ask aduiittance 
into that forum, and, perhaps, ought not to occupy it if ten- 
dered, unless proper amends be made to me ; though, in 
obedience to the lavf of the Lord, I forgive all trespasses 
committed against me, in the manner therein enjoined on 
me to forgive them. 

You s;)y that you prefer that I put myself " right before 

the public and resume the discussion ;" and yet say that you 

do not know what has passed between brother Goodwin and 

me, and the Journal Company and me. Not boasting of 

my rectitude, (for God knows I sin too often) I, however, 

heo leave to state, that I am nearer rio^ht before the All-see- 

... 
ing Eye, before the public, and in curia, as we lawyers say, 

than are those who have trespassed against me in getting up 

and circnlat'uig this slander. But that is a subject that I will 

not, neither now nor here, discuss nor expatiate upon. To 



196 EPISODE. 

my own Master I stand or fall, and not to those who judge 
another man's servant;^ an(], with his help, I will try and 
meet his approhation. 

But do not understand that I " decide not to attempt" 
to " put m^^self right before the public. " I have attempted 
it, but hitherto, however, with only partial success. But if 
the Lord spares me and permits, I purpose that it shall all 
come to the light, as I informed you in my letter of the lUth 
ultimo. 

But all this has nothing to do with the business of this 
correspondence. Hence to it. 

I desire to publish an introduction giving the reasons why 
it is important noiv to inquire and ascertain whether or not 
slavery is sinful ; in which will be included the preliminary 
articles. Tlien the discussion as far as it has gone. If you 
will immediately proceed with tlie discussion, in manuscript, 
to its conclusion, the other five numbers on each side will 
of course go in. If you do not, it will be a refusal on your 
part to finish and publish the discussion jointly, and I shall 
publish it as far as it has gone, with such concluding argu- 
ments and matter as I deem proper to go to the public 
with it. 

I again desire an early categorical answer, yea or nay ; 
and if yea, send me your number six immediately, or say 
whether I shall take that already published in the Record^ 
as number six, and reply to it. 

Fraternally yours, 

Jer. Smith. 

To which I received the following long response: 

Forest Home, near Indianapolis, Dec. 16th, 1862. 

Bro. Jer. Smith : — I have yours of the 10th. Your an- 
swer to my inquiries as to what you desire to include in the 
proposed publication, is not as definite as I could have 
wished. I could perceive no motive which you could have 
for the simple publication of the debate in its present un- 
finished state, and could therefore but suspect that you pro- 
posed uniting with it, in the publication, your defence against 
the charges made against you in the political papers of the 

(1) Rom. xiv, 4, 



day. I could not percoive the connection of the dehate, 
either with those charges, or with your vindication against 
them. For the purpose of ascei'tnining "how much you 
desire to publish, whether you would incliide the preliminary 
articles, or whether you would wish to add other and ex- 
trinsic matter," I asked you to "let me know how much 
and how little you desire to publish?" To this you reply 
that "you desire to publish an introduction, giving the 
reasons why it is important iioip to inquire and ascertain 
whether or'not slavery is sinful, in which will be included 
the preliminary articles. Then the discussion as far as it 
has gone." You do not say that this is ail, nor liave you 
removed my susificion that you wish to add to it other and 
extrinsic matter. You do not say how much or how little 
you desire to publisli. If your purpose is simply the pub- 
lication of the debate, I see no necessity of an introductory 
argument^ "giving the reasons why it is important now to 
inquire and ascertain whether or not slavery is sinful." It 
would be asking me to co-operate in the publication of 
whatever you might noiv choose to write on that subject. 
To this I could not consent. Nor could I consent, under 
cover of publishing the debate, to co-operate with you in a 
publication, the real purpose of which would be to vindicate- 
yourself against charges which have no connection with the 
debate, or with any matters named in it. I am not your 
accuser, and have no acquaintance with tiiose who are. 
Y^ou do not need my help or co-operatioij in your vindica- 
tion. Y^ou can manage that better without connecting me 
or the debate with it. 

I have a right to object, and do object, to your publish- 
ing the debate in connection with your purposed vindica- 
tion. You could have neither motive nor excuse for doinii 
so, but by charging me with being your accuser, or with 
colludinsr with those who have accused you. Such a charge 
would be false, and would be an attempt to place m.e in a 
false position. Such a charge would be calculated to injure 
rather than benefit you, in your vindication. Y'our charac- 
ter and former habits, so far as known to me, afforded a fair 
presumption that the charges against you were false. I so 
jgtated when I first heaid them, and you have no right to 
iplace me in a position of antagonism to you upon those 
charges. 



198 EPISODE. 

I suppose I need not hardly say whether I will now con- 
sent or decline to unite with you in the sole and simple pub- 
lication of the debate as it stands, with the preliminary ar- 
ticles as they stand, as I apprehend you do not contemplate 
making a proposition of that kind. Yet if so made, I should 
probably decline to unite in such a publication, as I am of 
opinion that the book would neither find sale, nor be read 
by the brethren, especially in the incomplete and imperfect 
state of the debate on both sides. 

I am not inclined to proceed with the discussion in man- 
uscript, as you suggest; for to do so, we would be simply 
writing for the benefit of each other, unless I should con- 
clude, in advance, to unite in the publication when comple- 
ted. If the debate should proceed, I am willing to abide 
by the terms of my own proposition in reference to the 
publication, and in reference to the number and length of 
the articles,^ to which you agreed, but which you seem to 
forget, and strive to crowd me back on to your first propo- 
sitions, which were not accepted by me. 

I have had some talk with brother Goodwin. He said 
he was willing that you should resume the debate upon terms 
to which he thought you would not object ; and that he 
would write you upon the subject. I suppose he has done 
so. If he proposes anything satisfactory to you, please 
let me know. Yours fraternally, 

Ovid Butler. 

About the time that I got the last preceding letter, I re- 
ceived the following from brother Goodwin : 

Indianapolis, Dec. 13th, 1862. 

Bro. Smpih : — I supposed you would see the propriety 
of the plan suggested by me, in a former letter, for clearing 
yourself of those unfavorable charges which appeared 
against you in some of the public papers, and that you 
would adopt that plan. I hoped that ere this, I should have 
received a favorable decision from the proposed committee, 
by publishing which, you would be placed favorably before 
the christian public. I have felt much afilicted in mind, to 

(1) Where is this proposition? If the reader can find it, he can do more than I can; 
and he has, in the preceding pages, all that brother Butler wrote, or that I agreed to on 
the subject. 



EPISODE. 199 

think that one who stood so high in my esteem, should be 
made the subject of such serious charges, under any cir- 
cumstances ; and therefore I feel very anxious that you should 
clear yourself of them, if you are innocent, as you aver. 

But you seem to have paid no attention to my friendly 
suggestions. For your sake, and for the sake of the cause 
of Christ, I do not feel willing for the matter to remain as 
it is. I therefore suggest, in all kindness, that you write 
and send me something like the enclosed article, and I ^yill 
publish it. Then the charges will stand denied ; and if any 
brethren should feel dissatisfied, it will remain for them to 
renew the charges, and ask an investigation. If no one 
should do this, your denial would stand approved. 

I hope you will not regard it as presumptions in me to 
make these suggestions, and that you will let me hear from 
you on the subject at your earliest convenience. 

Yours in hope, 

Elijau Goodwin. 

" The enclosed article.'' 

Bro. Goodwin: — You advised me, in a private note, to 
call a committee to investigate those slanderous reports that 
were published in some of the public prints against me, for 
the purpose of proving myself clear of those charges. I 
choose, however, simply to deny those charges ; and let 
those who believe them, and think the cause of Christ is 
suffering thereby, bring them up in due form, before a com- 
petent tribunal, and I will be ready to answer for myself. 

That I had an unpleasant difficulty with certain men that 
I believed to be soldiers, at the time referred to in those 
papers, by their attacking me without any provocation on 
m}^ part, is true. That I may have done and said things, 
in the excitement, that the law of Christ would not justify, 
I admit ; but that I was drunk, and swore profanely, or that 
I swore at all, on that occasion, I most positively deny. 

Yours, &c. 

I sent to brother Goodwin the following answer : 

Winchester, Dec. 18th, 1862. 

Bro. Goodwin: — Your kind letter of the 13th inst., with 
its enclosure, came while I was absent from home. 



200 EPISODE. 

Since my acquaintance with you, I have regarded you as 
possessed of a kind heart, and of uprightness of intention ; 
and this letter is an evidence, that in so regardin<:ij you, I 
did you no more than justice. 

But, my dear brother, permit me, in all kindness, in this 
private con-espondence between us, to suggest to you, that 
you, in common with uivself, and all other poor mortals of 
Adam's race, are liable to, and do, fall into errors of judg- 
ment, leading to, and resulting in, errors of action. 

Flow n>uch better it would have been, in my humble judg- 
ment, and how much more consonant with the divine law 
relating to such matters it would have been, had you writ- 
ten this, or a similar letter, to me, before, and instead of, 
publidi/ thrusting me out of the Record as a disputant in 
tlio middle of a discussion, stating that you were compelled 
to do so by certain reports in the public prints touching my 
recent conduct, thus <iivino; the christian brotherhood, pub- 
licly, in your paper, a quasi endorsement of those reports. 
Having first done thus j)ublich, then privately, thou;2;h in a 
kind spiiit, and with an u{)riglit intention, to cai! on me to 
clear myself ^ revorses all rules, (iivine and human, governing 
such cases. 

, I am not certain that the manner you suggest 0/ clearing 
myself^ is the best way, or even a j^'^^oper way, fakirig all the 
facts that have transpired info consideration^ of vindicating 
me against the foul and false libel?; and hence I can not at 
present accept your sii<yfrestions. If, when you learn this, 
you still '' do not foel willing for the matter to rest as it is," 
you will, of course, do what, before the Master, is proper 
for his cause, for you, and for me. 

It is proper, however, and my duty, now and here, to give 
you the reas:>ns why I did not, in ray address to the public, 
on the subject, notice the charge of drunkenness. They 
were two. \\\ that address, I was in a political forum. 

1. Had I been as drunk as charged, I should not, for that 
reason, have been mobbed. If I should, almost all the per- 
sons engaged in the mob should have been mobbed also. 
And men who conduct leading Republican p)apers shouhl be 
also mobbed at least twice a week. 

2. Temperance society men hold that if one partakes of 
spirits at all, he becomes intoxicated; while confirmed in- 
ebriates hold that one is not intoxicated so long as he re- 



EPISODE. 201 

tains his consciousness and powers of locomotion ; and all 
stages between these two extremes are held by some one or 
other in society as being the point at which intoxication 
commences. Hence, intoxicated or not intoxicated, is too 
vague an issue to make before the public, with political 
demagogues. 

The truth is this : I saw some friends and drank some 
spirits on the ^\iiy as I went to Portland, and felt the iniflu- 
ence of the spirits I had drunk, somewhat, when I got to 
Portland, and, of course, the spirits could be smelt on my 
breath ; hut I was not dnmlc in any fair sense of the tenn. 
The demagogues seized upon the fact as it was, to make the 
charge — hence I committed a sin ; for I was commanded to 
abstain from all appearance of evil.^ And though I actually 
committed no evil in partaking of the spirits, yet the use 
the devil made of it at Portland, and through the press, gave 
it the appearance of evil — hence I sinned ; and for that sin 
I have sorrowfully and bitterly repented, and have the word 
of God that I am pardoned for it. 

I did not say or do things at Portland " that the law of 
Christ would not justify ;" and hence, I can not say that I 
did, either publicly in your paper, or in this private corres- 
pondence with you. To my own Master, I stand or fall ; 
and not to those who judge another man's servant;- and with 
his help, I hope to be able to meet his approbation. 

May the good Lord enable us all to walk worthy of the 
vocation wherewith we are'called," and to be not high-minded 
but fear/ is my devout prayer. The God of peace be with 
you. Farewell. 

Jer. Smith. 

It is seen that brother Goodwin, in his last letter above 
inserted, says that a public denial by me of the foul charges 
'' would stand approved,'"' unless brethren who believed 
them, and thought the cause of Christ was suffering thereby, 
"should bring them up in due form before a competent tri- 
bunal,'' and '' renew the charges, and ask an investigation." 
He was right in this. And, if this was correct and true on 
the 13th of December, 1862, when he w^rote that letter, it 
was equally true and correct on the 10th and 17th of iSo- 



(1) IThes. V, 22. (2) Bom. xiv, 4. (3) Eph. ir, 1. (4) Bom. xi, 20. 

14 



202 EPISODE. 

vember, preceding. And the reader, by looking to ray com- 
munication to him of the date of November 10th, which I 
asked hita to publish, Avill see that in that communication I 
denied the charges, each and all of them. Tiiat denial 
"stood approved," unless brethren renewed the charges, 
brought them .up in due form, and asked an investigation 
before a competent tribunal. But brother Goodwin, on the 
17th of November, refused to publish that denial ; and said, 
in his letter refusing, that I had " adopted the wrong cour^-^e" 
to set myself right before the world. In less than a month 
afterwords, ho^^'ever, to-wit : on the 13th of December, he 
said it v/as right, and recommended me then to take it — 
things still standing as they then were, before the brother- 
hood and the public. 

The reader, by looking back, will see that I said in reply 
to that, that I was not certain that the manner then sugges- 
ted by him was the best, or even a proper way of proceed- 
in o" takino- all the facts that had transpired into considera- 
tion ; and that hence, I could not then accept hrs suggestions. 
He had said that he did not feel willing to let the matter 
rest as it was, from which I had necessarily to understand 
that he intended to have it straightened out ; and lie wanted 
me to take the initiative. I thought, and still think, taking 
all the facts that had transpired into consideration, that it 
was his place to take the initiative, and not mine. If he 
believed the charges, he should have renewed them, and 
asked an investigation, in due form, before a competent 
tribunal. If he did not believe them, he should, in liis paper, 
publicly, have taken back and undone the mischief he had 
done me by his publication in the Record, of the 4th of 
November. " Had he done so, then the way would have been 
open for me to make such a publication as recommended by 
him on the loth of December. I could not then accept 
that suggestion, because his publication of the 4Lh of 
NovembtT stood, and all that had passed between him and 
me, and the Journal Company and me, had been, and then 
was, suppressed and kept from the public. Things standing 
thus before the public, in publishing a denial of the charges, 
it was ab£;olutely necessary that, with it, I should set out 
the facts and circumstances showing the animus, the spirit, 
object and purpose of those who had got up, and of those 
who had circulated the charges. These things my comma- 



EPISODE, 203 

nication of November 10th did, and that recommended by 
brother Goodwin on December 13th, did not do. He re- 
fused to publish mine of the 10th, I think, because it ex- 
posed the faults of the Journal Company and himself, rather 
than because it was too political, as he alleged. Hence, 
before I could properly appear in his paper, otherwise than 
jis set out in my communication of tbe 10th of November, 
or move in the matter, he had to take the initiative: either to 
renew the charges and proceed in dtce form, or to remove 
the quasi endorsement he had given them by his publication 
of November 4th, and place me before the christian broth- 
erhood and the public, as if that publication had never been 
made. Hence, I gave him the facts as to the charge of 
drunkenness, that he might have them to consider, with the 
others, in determining which course he would take. Yet 
he took neither, and *' let the matter rest as it was." 

He said I *' adopted the wrong course " in the article I 
pent him for publication on the 10th of November. Well, 
I said, and I think I have shown in the preceding pages, 
partly from his own pen, that he adopted the wrong course 
in making that publication, when he did, and as he did. In 
my public denial of the charges to which he gave a quasi 
endorsement by that publication, sent to him for publica- 
tion, I showed, as it was my duty to show, the impropriety 
of the course he, as well as the Journal Company, had pur- 
sued towards me, but included in it my prayer for their for- 
giveness for the trespasses they had committed against me, 
having set out and shown what they were. Is he to deter- 
mine what is the proper course for him and me both? Is it 
not as proper that I should determine for both? And yet I 
do not claim the right, and would not exercise it, if I have 
privilege of determining for both. I judge him not; and 
'* unto God would I commit my cause ;"^ *' I would order 
my cause before him."^ 

Brother Butler said that a certain thing said as to him, 
was so palpably a fiction, " that it needs no notice from me."^ 
These charges were so, as to me, with persons who had 
known my conduct for forty years, in this community, 
where I live. They were so palpably false that they did 
not need a denial from me, with all who had so known me, 

(1) Jobv/8. (2) Jobxxiii, 4. (3) Ante, p. ISS. 



204 EPISt>DK 

and who did not wish to believe evil of me — who did not wrsh 
the charges true ; and those who did, I regard as beneath 
my attention, and unworthy of any notice from me. Such 
charges against brethren Goodwin and Butler, even^ in a 
religious paper, much more in dirty, filthy, political, parti'zan 
sheets, would need no denial from them, with me; nor would 
I circulate such reports against them, emanating from such 
sources. Brother Butler says that he stated, when he first 
heard the charge, that my character and former habits af- 
forded a fair presumption that they were false. ^ 

What put it into brother Butler's head, that in publish- 
ing the debate, I would unite with it my defence against the 
conduct of my accusers? And what put it into his head, 
that he would be charged with being my accuser, or with 
colluding with those who have accused me ? I bad said 
neither. The reader will please look back and see if I had. 
Did his '^ heart'' condemn him? Or, did his "intuition" 
" before and above all reasomug," bring these things up in 
his mind? 

Let us first state and look at the facts as they are. 
Brother Butler is a stockholder, and, I am told, a large 
one, in in the Indianapolis Journal Company. He is an 
influential member of that corporation or firm, whichever 
it may be. Tilford is the President of that Company, and 
of course a stockholder. They are the co-bishops of the 
Christian Chui'ch at Indianapolis, are both rabid abolition- 
ists, and, of course, are in intimate social relations. 

Brother Butler knows the Latin legal maxim, as well a& 
that it is true, Quifacit per alium, facit per se — "What a 
man does by another, he does by himself;" and, that as to 
firms and corporations, the act of the firm or corpora- 
tion is the act of each member; and that each member is 
presumed to know, that is, that it is taken as a fact that he 
does know, all the acts of the firm or corporation in the 
course of its business. Hence brother Butler knew and 
assented to the copying of the libel from the Winchester 
Journal into the Indianapolis Journal^ and knew and as- 
sented to the refusal of the Indianapolis Journal to publish 
my defence, notwithstanding the presumption, in his opinion, 
was, that the charges were false. If he did not actually 

(1) Ante,prl»if. 



g)?isoi>E. 20& 

k-BOW of these things at the time they were done, as he sayg 
he did not, when they came to his knowledge, what was his 
duty, he believing them to be false, and in contemplation of 
lav,', the Journal Company's act being his a<;t? It was to 
teW the Company to publicly, in their paper, withdraw the 
charges, or publish my defence. But instead of that, he 
says ^' my advice wa« not sought, nor was it given." Thus 
not only in contemplation of law, but in fact, he assented 
to, and assumed the acts of the Journal Company. Had 
he then forgotten what he so eloquently said in his third 
article of the debate about love, as exhibited in action — in 
doing?* Had he forgott'en the Scriptures he then partly 
quoted? "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do 
good unto all men,^pecialli/ tinio themivho are of the house- 
hold of faith.^^^ " Love worketh no ill to his neighbor."^ 
^' If any man say I love God, and hateth his brother, he is 
a liar : for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, 
how can he love God whom he hath not &eeii ?"'' And had 
fie forgotten the divine commands that he did not there 
-quote ? " Above all things, have fervent charity (love) 
among yourselves : for charity (love) shall cover a multitude 
of siiis."^ " Charity (love) suffereth long, and is kind ; ^ 
'^ '''■ thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth 
in the trutk.''^ But this " fountain " of love brother Butler 
<;ould not " bathe in," and could not " breathe of that at- 
mosphere of love " in my case, because (as I can only sup- 
pose) I was not of the proper race and color t© be the re- 
cipient of the ebulition of abolition love. Yet he -says the 
Lord took this law of love from " neighbor," and ^ppii.ed i^; 
to "men" — "all men." 

And he approved brother Goodwin's publication of the 
4th of I^ovember, closing the debate until I should " vindi- 
'Cate" myself against the slander he had, through the i'/^r^^- 
^napolis Journal^ sent all over the State, and had refused to 
send my " vindicatien " in the same sheet. The Wmchester 
Journal was limited in its circulation to 300 or 400 copies, 
and they in the region of country whei-e I have been known, 

(1) Ante, pp. 131-2-3-4, which the reader will please turn to and read. 

(2) Gal. vi, 10. (3) Rom. xiii, 10. (4) 1 John iv, 20. 

(5) 1 Pet. iv, 8. Wesley, in his note on this passage, says: "He that Zore« another, 
-covereth his faults, how many soevor they be. lie turns away his own eyes from them; 
and', as far as possible, MUes them from o^Aer^," instead -of publishing them brcadcast 
in his paper. 

{<C) 1 <;«r- ifii, 4-6, 



206 EPISODE. 

and have lived for forty-odd years. Its circulation and dis- 
semination of the shmder, was measurably futile and harm- 
less ; but brethren Tilfokd and Butler, by their journal, 
sent it upon the wings of the wind, all over the State, and 
even out of the State, to thousands, to whom neither I, nor 
my conduct, are known. 

J3rothcr Butler was greatly alarmed lest, if the debate 
should be published, my defence would be published v/itli it. 
Why should he be ? He says he " could not perceive the 
connection of the debate, either with those charges, or with 
your (»ny) vindication against them." No connection be- 
tween the debate and the charges ? Well, I thought so too. 
But what are the facts? Brother Goodwin with brother 
BuTLEi'.'s approbation, stopped the debate because of the 
charges ; and did this publicly, not privately, as he should 
have done, if he did it at all. How, then, does it become 
necessary to notice the charges in this book? Let the facts- 
answer. I invited brother Butler to go on and close the 
debate in manuscript, and told him that if he did, it would 
all go to the public in the book, having informed him that 
it would be published in book form — with him if he went 
into the publication, and by me if he refused ; and that if he 
refused to finish the debate, I should "publish it as far as it 
had gone, with such concluding arguments and matter as I 
should deem proper to go to the public with it." Yet he said 
that I did not say whether or not I would not stop the book 
at the end of the discussion as far as it had gone ! and that 
he would not proceed and close the discussion in manuscript, 
because it would " be simply writing for the benefit of each 
other " ! ! Had he gone on and finished the debate, it would 
have appeared in this book unbroken, and there would have 
been no need of saying anything about the charges, or of 
the suspension of the publication of the debate in the Rec- 
ord; an<i nothing would have been said in this hook about 
either, unless he had in his subsequent articles allude«l to the 
charges, or to the excommunication of me from the Record^ 
in wiiich case it would have been done. But as he refused 
to finish the discussion, the debate necessarily appears in 
this book abruptly broken off in the middle. This makes ii 
absolutely necessary that the reason why it is so abruptly 
broken off, be given to the reader. Hence this Episode. 
The facU as to that breaking oflf, constitute a full "■ vindica- 



EPISODE. 207 

tion" of me. And the reader will see, that this book dis- 
proves the charge he makes, that " the real purpose " of my 
publishing it, is to " vindicate " myself. When I undertook 
the labor of this debate, I did it with the intention of giving 
it to the public in book form. I would not liave undertaken 
the labor for a mere newspaper debate. The real purpose 
of this book, is to combat abolitionism through its chief 
dogma that slavery is sinful. 

At the outset, brother Butler professed to be anxious to 
have the discussion resumed, and said if it was not, he would 
desire, "in some form, to close" his argument. But when 
invited to resume the discussion and finish it. and informed 
that it vv'ould go to the public in book form, he declined on 
the gi-ound that we would only be writing for ourselves ! 
The rational inference from these facts is, that at first he 
supposed he had me permanently shut down upon and hushed 
up, and he wanted to close his argument without my replies, 
because he had found them to be too damaging. For when 
I offered to close the discussion with him, he refused. He 
did not place his refusal on the ground of the charges. He 
•stated twice in that letter, that the debate had no connection 
with the charges. Still he refused to close the debate to go 
to the public in a book, in which he might be joint publisher 
if he would. This shows that he wanted to suppress the 
debate, equally as badly as he wanted to suppress me. 

His broad assertion that God had never granted property 
in man, I had totally demolished ; and in my last article, I 
exposed and laid bare the dodge he was trying to make, to 
shift the issue on that question, to other and collateral mat- 
ters. These, in my humble opinion, were the true reasons 
why he did not want to conclude the debate with me, to go 
to the public in a book, or otherwise; and these were the 
reasons why he wanted to close his argument in some form, 
(but without my replies) scuttle-fish like, to cover up his 
defeat. The language of the article in the Record of Novem- 
ber 4th, satisfies my mind that it was framed in consultation 
with him, if not by him. He said he approved it. The 
Winchesfer Journal's article was a God-send tc the Indian- 
aoplis abolition clique. It came very opportunely, when I 
had them, through their champion, in a very tight place upon 
their darling dogma. It was seized upon by them with 
avidity, and sent bi/ them broadcast over the world, so far 



208 EPISODE. 

as their political organ, the Indianapolis Journal, could 
send it. In their religious organ, the ChrisHan liecord, ou 
the pretext of the libel they had disseminated against me, 
they shut me out of the debate, telling me to set myself 
right before the public against their fulmination, refusing 
me space in the columns of both their organs to do it! In- 
stead of proceeding in proper form, to establish the charges 
they had given to the j^uhlic against vie, they called upon me 
to prove myself clear of them. Their brother Boggs said 
** the accused party is not under obligation to prove himself 
not guilty. But on the contrary, the 07ms jjrohandl rests 
entirely upon the accuser."^ But they reversed the rule 
when they accused me. 

On the 28th of November, 1862, the following editorial 
article appeared in the Winchester Journal : 

ONCE MORE AND FINALLY. 

An inadvertence of workmen in the office compels allusion 
again to the Judge Smith Portland affair. Until vrithin a 
very short time, the present editor had not assumed entire 
control of that department ; and from what had been the 
custom, he was not surprised to see, in proof, a short article 
from the Independent in reference to the above matter. So 
soon as his eye fell upon it, he made the request, that it by 
all means be thrown out, as he wished to have done with 
that matter. This was readily agreed to by the other part- 
ner ; and he could have almost sworn, when his attention 
was called to it on the morning of publication, that it was 
not in his paper. It came about thus : 

It was not read in proof at all, but taken back into the 
compositor's department and set aside, but not distributed. 
In this way it was found by a hand who happened to make 
up the forms for the outside of that paper, but knew noth- 
ing of the circumstances, and placed in a space it was 
adapted to hll. In this way the whole edition was worked 
oflf with the obnoxious article in its columns. No one, per- 
haps, regrets it more than the editor. He would not have 
had it appear knowingly on any account. 

A final word about this whole matter. We published the 
original article, because we thought it gave a true statement 

(1) Ante, p. J9. 



EPISODE. 209 

of the ^'affair." The Judge replied in extenso. As the 
" town was full of people," it was expected that something 
further would he said by witnesses on one side or the other. 
Everybody else keeping silence, we intended to do the same. 

ToAvards our neighbor and fellow townsman, Judge Smith, 
we never have had an ill-feeling. Take him out of politics, 
and we have few neighbors with whom we have got on more 
agreeably; and we have had considerable intercourse and 
dealings with each other. 

To our way of regarding things, his political principles 
are highly obnoxious to the growth of true liberty in this 
country, and to the preservation and integrity of the Gov- 
ernment. It was as a politician, as an intelligent, influen- 
tial and determined exponent and defender of the devil- 
daring, pro-slavery, secession-sympathizing 8th of January 
Democracy, that he was spoken of in this paper, in reference 
to the rather notorious affair — "more in sorrow than in 
anger." It was the politician that went to Jay county on 
that memorable " October day." The politician had seen 
in the results of the election " a gleam of hope." The 
politician felt elated. The politician doubtless had taken 
an extra glass of wine when he drove into Portland ; and 
further this deponent sayeth not. 

This pretty much takes back all the charges of the libel. 
It apologizes for the appearance, in the previous week's 
paper, of a filthy article from Beecher's Independent about 
it. Says that it supposed the statements of the libel true 
when he published it; that I had denied it, and it had not 
been sustained by witnesses, though the town was full of 
people. Speaks of me personally " out of politics." Says 
it was as a politician, using a hard epithet, that I was spoken 
of in the libel. That I was elated about the result of the 
election ; had doubtless taken an extra glass of wine ; but 
further as to the charges of the libel, it said not — in other 
words, would not re-affirm them. 

A single remark. The political press can properly dis- 
cuss only public measures, and the acts of public men as to 
public measures. Private character, and the acts of men 
in private life, are not proper subjects for comment and 
criticism of the public political press. Whenever the polit- 
ical press does inveigh against men in private life, it is an 



210 EPISODE. 

improper act, and is never done only for base party pur- 
poses; and the very fact that it is done, is proof tliat what 
is so said, should be wholly disregarded. And all good cit- 
izens so treat it. I was a private citizen, in priv^ate life, 
was not a candidate, and had not been ; and hence was not 
a proper subject of comment in the political press. All 
this Tilford, Butler and Goodwin knew, as well as it was 
known at Winchester. 

Notwithstanding the keen-sightedness of the Indianapolis 
Jonrnal Company in seeing the libel in the Wmchester Jo^ir- 
7ial, and their promptness in copying it into their paper, 
they could not see and copy this article from the Winchester 
Journal of the 28th of November. And notwithstanding 
brother Goodwin had seen the charges, and publicly ex- 
pelled me from the Record for them, he could not see this 
article, and say in his paper, that the WincheMer Journal^ 
whence the charges against J. S. emanated, having virtually 
withdrawn those charges, we announce the fact, and invite 
him to renew in our columns the discussion of slavery ; 
leaving out any expression of sorrow, if he did not feel any, 
for having rudely, publicly expelled me on baseless charges. 

I have set out before the reader, in this jEpisode, this 
phase of abolitionism, which I would have been much re- 
joiced if necessity had not been laid upon me to do. It is, 
however, in its main feature, consonant with the general 
character and conduct of abolitionism, which is, to malign, 
libel and falsify every person and thing opposed to it. 
Such has been its course for years, till even excellent men, 
such as brother Goodwin (and he is an excellent man,) are 
led to make such gross assertions as " the bodies and souls 
of men for whom Jesus died are chattelized," and "the in- 
stitution of slavery is traffic in human flesh;" he not being 
conscious that abolition evil-speaking and evibsurmising, 
for years, had led him into such erroneous conduct. 

My discussion of their pet dogma was becoming so dam- 
aging, that they resorted to their common practice of libel 
and vilification, to get rid of me and of the discussion, as 
set out in this Episode. They have not succeeded. Their 
efforts to blast my reputation have been measurably harm- 
less. I have taken other means than their organs, of get- 
ting the discussion, including the balance of what I had to 
say, before the public. What they will do when this book 



EPISODE. 211 

goes before the public, I do not know; but judging from the 
uniform conduct of abolitionism for years, I suppose that 
the libel is but as a drop in the bucket, in comparison to 
the torrents of vituperation and slang that will be poured 
upon my devoted head. I expect to show before I close 
this book, and prove, not by inference, but by the law of 
the Lord, flie sinfulness of abolitionism. And I confess in 
advance, that I sin more or less daily ; and were it not that 
the Lord has made propitiation for my sins, and is an Advo- 
cate for me with the Father, whereby I have the word of 
God that I may obtain pardon for my sins, I should have 
no hope. A difference between my quondam abolition 
brethren and me, is, that I frankly confess that I sin ; while 
they will not admit their sins, but Pharisee-like, thank God 
that they are not like other men — like us poor anti-aboli- 
tionists, for instance. " If we say that we have no sin, we 
deceive ourselv(?s, and the truth is not in us;"^ 

The Lord has given me warning and notice, that as they 
called him Beelzebub, how much more will they call me, 
humble and frail as I am ; but he has told me to fear them 
not ; for their machinations shall all be developed, exposed, 
and made known.^ With humble confidence in, and reliance 
upon his promise, I cast away fear, and say, let their vitu- 
peration come, and to God I commit my cause. 

(1) IJohui, 8. (2) Malt. X, 25-2T. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, 



DEBATE WITH ELDER THOMAS WILEY. 



I desire to lay before the reader all that has been said to 
me by our brethren in favor of the proposition, Slavery is 
frhiful, before I proceed to my ex parte discussion of the 
question. Hence, I have concluded to insert a partial dis- 
cussion of the question, that took place between me and 
brother ThoxMAS Wiley, pastor of the Christian Church at 
Union City, Indiana, in the winter and spring of 1861. I 
do this, as well because I want all that those who assert the 
proposition, have said, to go to the reader, as that brother 
Wiley presented some views and reasons why slavery is 
sinful, that I should not have thought of being urged for 
such a purpose ; and yet I have no doubt that thousands of 
honest well-meaning people, accept thero as sufficient proof. 
In answering brother Wiley I answer them. 

Brother Wiley had originally but a limited education ; 
but he was a man of strong mind, and by application, he 
made considerable progress in the acquisition of knowledge. 
He earnestly loved the truth, and followed it when he be- 
came satisfied where it led, though to do so required the 
abandonment of previous opinions. This I knew him to do 
on three or four occasions, during our acquaintance of more 
than twenty years. 

In January, 1801, in a friendly conversation with him, I 
stated to him for the first time, that I did not admit that 
slavery was sinful ; that I had investigated the subject, and 
was satisfied that it was not sinful. This seemed to astonish 
him, and he seemed to think that there could be no doubt 



214 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

but that it was sinful. I suggested that he had before 
found some previous notions he had entertained to be erro- 
neous, and it might be, that if he would investigate this, he 
might find it to be so too. The result of the conversation 
was, that we agreed to enter into a friendly investigation of 
the matter in writing, and I drew up four propositions, sub- 
stantially like those 1 sent to brother Boggs shortly after- 
wards, sent him a copy of them, and retained one myself. 
The following is the correspondence that ensued between us. 
I make some slight changes in brother Wiley's articles, 
merely, however, as to style, such as using / where he used 
we, &c. 



ELDER WILEY'S NUMBER ONE. 



Jer. Smith — Dear Brother: — I received your proposi- 
tions, and am entirely willing to affirm that Slavery is a sin- 
ful imtitution, and do the very best I can to prove it. 

Your first proposition says that slavery is an institution 
of civil society; arid you suppose tliat we will both agree to 
this. Now, all I have to say on this proposition, at this 
time, is this : I believe that slavery originated in paganism, 
and that its tendency is back to paganism again. But I 
pass to notice your second proposition, as it involves the 
real issue between us. The proposition reads : The insti- 
.tution of slavery is sinful. 

Now, as I understand you to mean American slavery, I 
will attempt to defend the truth of the proposition by the 
christian Scriptures. In order for us to discuss this propo- 
sition understandingly, we must know what sin is. We 
must know what constitutes an institution sinful. What is 
it? Let the apostle answer. He says, '' Sin is the trans- 
gression of the law." Again, *' Ail unrighteousness is sin.'"' 
Here we have the question clearly defined. Every institu- 
tion that is contrary to God's law, is sinful; all uarighteous- 

(1) IJohniii, 4; v, 17. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 215 

ness, every act which is opposed to the law of God, is sin- 
fid. I am now prepared for an effort to sustain the truth 
of my aflirmative proposition. 

1. My first argument is based on the following language 
of the apostle, when speaking of the God that made the 
world, he said, " hath made of one blood all nations oC men 
for to dwell on all the face of the earth. "^ Here we learn 
that 0^/ nations of men are made of one blood, and there- 
fore have one common Father, This confirms the truth of 
what has long since been said, that ''none but God can own 
a man." Now, as God has never given to man authority to 
reduce his brother or fellow-man to the level of a brute beast, 
as does the institution of slavery; and as human laws arc 
essential to the existence of slavery, and as slavery does 
reduce human beings to that of chattel property, the only 
legitimate conclusion which can be drawn from the premises, 
is, that the institution of slavery is a sinful institution. A 
word more at this point. If it can be shown that a class of 
persons of a certain cast or color, can be siiilessli/ enslaved, 
then it can be shown that all, in their turn, of every cast, 
color, or nation, may be enslaved, and no sin committed. 
Now, let it be remembered, that he who labors to show the 
righteousness of the institution of slavery, is laboring to 
show that he may be righteousli/ enslaved Idmself. FoK all 

ARE JIADE OF ONE DLOOD. 

2. The Savior, in speaking of the institution of marriage, 
says : " For this cause shall a man leave his father and 
mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and they twain shall 
be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain but one 
flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not 
man put asunder."- This passage shows that marriage is a 
divine institution. The institution of '' American slavery" 
is of human origin ; it is supported and carried on by human 
authority. It separates husband and wife, parents and chil- 

_ dren; and regardless of God's authority, it sunders all the 
holy and endearing ties of the family relation. This Amer- 
ican slavery doea do. Now, as sin is the transgression of the 
law of God, and as the institution of slavery is rebellion 
against God's government, by sundering every tie of natural 
affection, it is therefore a sinful institution. Now, brother 



(1) Act8xvii,26. (2) Matt, xix, 5, 6. 



216 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

Smith, we must have this difficulty removed before we can 
believe that the institution is not sinful. And remember, 
too, that in this case the institution of slavery is directly 
opposed to the '' words," " even the wholesome words of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to 
godliness." 

3. My third argument is based upon the following words 
of the Savior : " The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because 
he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor ; he 
hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliver- 
ance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, 
to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the accep- 
table year of the Lord."^ These are also the words, " the 
wJiolesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine 
which is according to godliness." This is the doctrine of 
the reign of favor, " the acceptable year of the Lord." 
But alas ! the institution of slavery stands directly opposed 
to the doctrine. The subjects of the peculiar institution 
are the poor, blinded, bruised, broken-hearted captives, and 
they are not permitted to receive the Lord's Gospel — the 
blessings of the " acceptable year of the Lord." Now, as 
the institution of slavery is, in this case, clearly seen to 
stand opposed to the Gospel of Christ, and as sin is the 
transgression of the law, it follows as clear as a sun-beam, 
that the institution of slavery is a sinful institution. Now, 
dear brother, these contradictions between slavery and 
Christianity must be removed, or we never can believe that 
the institution of slavery is right. 

4. My fourth argument is founded on the following words 
of the Savior : " Therefore all things whatsoever ye would 
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; for this 
is the law and the prophets."^ Here the Savior concen- 
trates the law and the prophets, and makes out a case to be 
taken home to the hearts of every individual person. This 
is indeed the " golden rule." It is not merely one or two 
things, but it is all things ivhatsnever ye would thai men 
should do to yoii^ do ye even so to them. This rule tries 
men's souls. When this rule is properly regarded, it is no 
mere seeing visions, and dreaming dreams; it is communing 
with realities. And he who is not willing to be reduced to 
the degrading institution of slavery, as are the slaves of the 

(1) Lnke iv, 18, 19. (2) Matt. Tii, 12. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. -^l? 

South, can not favor the peculiar institution without viola- 
ting this precept of our Lord Jesus Christ ; without viola- 
ting the '* words, even the wholesome words of the Lord, 
and the doctrine which is according to godliness." In this 
case, the institution of slavery is directly opposed to the 
doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ, and is therefore seen to 
be a sinful institution. 

5. My fifth argument is founded upon the following lan- 
guage of the apostle : *' But if ye have respect to persons, 
ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgres- 
sors."^ 

This case really needs no comment. I think no one in 
this enlightened age will pretend to say that there is no 
difference between slavery and freedom — between the slave 
and his master. Surely no one Vv^ili take the position, that 
the same respect is shown to the slave that is shown to the 
slave owner. This being true, and I think it can not be 
denied, then it follows that the institution is a sinful insti- 
tution. 

6. This, my sixth argument, shall be based upon the 
Lord's final decision. The case reads as follows : *' Then 
shall the king say to them on his right hand, come ye blessed 
of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
the foundation of the world : for I vras a hungered and ye 
gave me meat: I w^as thirsty and ye gave me drink : I was 
a stranger and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: 
I was sick and ye visited me : I w^as in prison, and ye came 
unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, 
Lord when saw we thee a hungered and fed thee ? or thirsty 
and gave thee drink ? When saw we thee a stranger, and 
took thee in ? or naked and clothed thee ? Or when saw vre 
thee sick, or in prison and came unto thee ? And the king 
shall aiisvr'er and say unto them, verily I say unto you, in- 
asmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these 
my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall the 
king say also unto them on the left hand, depart from me, 
ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and 
his angels: for I was a hungered and ye gave me no meat: 
I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink : I was a stranger, 
and ye took me not in : naked, and ye clothed me not : sick 



(1) James ii, 

15 



218 MSCTJSSIOX OF SLAVERY. 

and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also 
answer him, saying. Lord when saw we thee a hungered, or 
athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and 
did not minister to thee ? Then shall he answer them, 
saying, verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did ft not to 
one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these 
shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the righteous 
into life eternal."^ The particular in this connection, upon 
which my argument is based, is this : It is here clearly 
shown, that, as we treat the Lord's disciple, so we treat the 
Lord himself. Now, as the institution of American slavery 
does whip, abuse, starve, imprison, and even sell the disci- 
ples of Christ, it most assuredly does these things to the 
Lord himself. And when Judas sold his Lord for silver, it 
was certainly a sinful act. And now, as the institution of 
American slavery does sell Christ's disciples, and takes the 
money for them, it is most assuredly a sinful institution. 

7. This argument is based upon the following language : 
*' Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.''^ 
A few words here, and I close for this time. The mind of 
Christ. Ah ! what was th^ mind of Christ ? or what is the 
mind of Christ ? He was " holy, harmless, undefiled, sepa- 
rate from sinners," and made higher than the heavens. lie 
could say, ^'Father, not my will but thine be done." Was 
he minded to have slavery? Where, Avhere, we ask, did he 
ever show a mind like that of slaveholding ? The divine 
Savior suffered death — yea, he was willing — he had a 77iind 
io suffer death for the redemption of poor, blinded, bruisedy 
broken-hearted captives, such as slavery's bonds are fettering 
to-day. Now, as slavery binds, and the Lord's (iospel 
frees, it follows that the institution of slayery is a sinful 
institution. 

Tnos. Wiley. 

Now, Bro. Smith, the foregoing are some of the reasons 
why I believe that the institution of slavery is sinful. I 
liavc more; but I expect to hear from you soon. Please 
write a plain hand. Send my first back when you send 
your first. T. W. 

Cl> Matt. XXV, 34-4&. (2) Phil. ii,5. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 219 

JER. SMITH'S REPLY INCUMBER ONE. 



My Dear Brother Wiley : — Your number one, tlicugii 
left for me some time ago, only reached nre yesterday. 

Slavery is an institution existing in fact. It must be an 
institution of civil society or civil government; or it is an 
institution of the christian kingdom ; for there are but the 
tv/o — the kingdoms of this world, and the kingdom of our 
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I aver that it is an institu- 
tion of civil society or civil government; you do not deny 
it, but say that it originated in paganism, and that its ten- 
dency is back to paganism. If this is true, it is not an in- 
stitution of the Lord's kingdom, but of civil society, or the 
kingdoms of this v/orld. I understood you in our conver- 
sation, in which this friendly discussion was agreed upon, 
to agree with me that it was an institution of civil society. 
You do not, in your number one, deny it, but do not, in 
words, admit it, but pass on to the second propositioB, " as 
it involves the real issue between us," in your opinion. I 
notice this first proposition, as it is well for us' to under- 
stand each other as we go along, and " not strive about 
v/ords to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers,"^ 
and set it down that we agree that slavery is an institution 
of civil society. 

" Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law ; 
for sin is the transgression of the law."^ " All unrighteous- 
ness is sin/'^ These divine rules and definitions you quote 
in part. Of course they are right, because they are divine. 
But that we may fully understand it, I will quote some 
further: 'MYhosoever ahiddh in him^ sinneth not."'^ "He 
that keepeth his commandments, dwellefh in him, and he in 
him."^ ^' If ye keep my commandments, y6 shall abide in 
my love ; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, 
and abide in his love."" " He that doeth righteousness, is 
righteous, even as he (Christ) is righteous."" 

From these divine oracles we learn that sin is a trans- 
gression of the law of God ; that if we abide in the Lord, 
v/e will not sin; that if we. keep his commandments, we 



(1) 2 Tim. ii, 14. ^3) 1 John v, 37. (5) 1 John iii, 24. (7j 1 John iii, X. 

(2) I John, iii, 4. (4) 1 John iii, 6. (6) John xv, 10. 



220 DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 

shall dwell or abide in him, and in his love, as he abided in 
his Father's love by keeping his Father's commandments ; 
that if we do righteousness, that is, keep the Lord's com- 
mandments, v/e shall be righteous as the Lord was righteous, 
who was not left alone by the Father, because he did "al- 
ways th.ose things that pleased" the Father,^ thnt is, the 
thinirs that the Father had commanded him to do. 

Having premised these things, I will proceed to notice 
your arguments, seriatim. 

1. Your first argument, thrown into the form of a syllo- 
gism, is : The whole human family have one common ori- 
gin, to-wit, God and Adam; therefore the institution of 
slavery is sinful ! ! The conclusion does not follow from 
the premises. It has no logical relation to the premises. 
As well might the conclusion be: therefore the relation of 
ihonarch and subject, in all monarchical governments, is sin- 
ful ; or, therefore is the relation of President and subordi- 
nate officers, and the relation between them and citizens, in 
this government, sinful relations ! This argument is a fal- 
lacy, brother Wiley. 

You quote, in this argument, a scrap of home-made 
Scripture, that I think proper to notice, to-wit: "None but 
God can own a man." This is not only home-made, but it 
is contradictory of divine Scripture,* as vvill appear before 
we get through this discussion. Let us stick to the "Scrip- 
tures given by inspiration," in our investigation ; for they 
alone are "profitable for doctrine," and " for instruction in 
righteousness,"^ to-wit, for instruction in keeping the com- 
mandments of God; for, keeping the commandments of God, 
is righteousness. 

Some other matters thrown in by you under this head, 1 
Y/ill notice, though irrelevant to the investigation before us. 
You assume that the institution of slavery reduces man " to 
the level of a brute beast," to "chattel property," &c 
This is untrue, brother Wiley; the imtitution does no such 
thing; and it is a great pity that so many good me?.! and 
women are misled by this, and similar mis statements tjiat 
have been made for years, and are still being made, as tc 
what the institution does. In almost every particular, i& 
the relation of master and the slave, different from tliat be- 
tween the owner and the animal of brute creation. Somo 

(1) John viii, 29. (2) 2 Tim. iii, 16. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 221 

had masters may treat some of their slaves like brute beasts; 
but it is the man, and not the institution, that does that. 
The institution itself regards both master and slave as hu- 
man beings, and not as brute beasts ; but either or both 
may, by their conduct, become like brute beasts, and each 
may treat the other as if he were a brute beast. But it is 
the man that does this — not the institution. Many hus- 
bands and wives treat their companions as brute beasts. 
Does that prove the institution of marriage sinful ? Cer- 
tainly not. 

Another item under this head : In this investigation, it is 
not incumbent on any one to '' labor to show the righteous- 
ness of the institution of slavery." It is incumbent on 
you to show that it is sinful, that is, a transgression of the 
law of God; it is not incumbent on me to show that it is 
commanded of God ; for that is required to niake it right- 
eousness in one to become or remain a slaveholder or a 
slave. The onus or burden of proof is on you, not on me. 
You are to produce the law of God that the institution 
itself is a transgression of; I need not produce any law of 
God ordaining it. 

2. The institution of slavery is not violative of the mar- 
riage rights, any more than is civil government itself. Civil 
goverment may, and often does, separate husband and wife, 
parent and child, brother and sister, when the public defence, 
the public welfare, or public justice requires it. In time of 
war, husbands and sons are drafted into tl^.e army ; and 
when the public health, public duty, or public justice re- 
quires it, husband, vvife, son, or daughter, is separated from 
the rest of the family, by the civil government. Because 
of these facts, will brother Wiley say that the institution 
of civil government is sinful ? Of course not. Bad rulers 
or bad mastoids may commit sins by violating marital rights ; 
but that is their sin, not the sin of the institution either of 
government or of slavery. The master may have bad reg- 
ulations, or the State may have bad laws where slavery ex- 
ists, as to the marriage rights and relations ; but that is the 
sin of the master or of the legislature — it is not to be 
charged up as the sin of the institution. 

The " wholesome words of Christ" will be attended to in 
due time ; I am glad you have named them. 

?). Your third authority is what Christ read from Isaiah 



9,99 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 



as reconled in Luke iv, 18, 19. This was done wlien he 
was entering liis ministry, and was simply a reading of 
what tl'ie spirit had said 700 years before, througli the 
prophet, that he should' do when he came. Among the 
things that the prophet said he should do, was *' to preach 
deliverance to the CiJptives." As he has fulfilled that mis- 
sion, and has ascended up on high, we must, to understand 
the prophecy, look to what he did i^reach, instead of look- 
ing to what it was said he would preach when he canje. If 
your construction of the propliocy is right, we can find that 
he preached that slavery is sinful, and that masters should 
lot their slaves go free. And that is the passage to cite me 
to. The passage you'cite, is where he announces what he is 
to do ; shov,' us where he did it. in your sense of preaching 
deliverance to the captives, and that will be the law, the 
transgression of which will be sin. I apprehend, my brother, 
that you can not find where he preached deliverance to the 
captives in your sense of deliverance; if you can, please 
cite me to the phirce. 

I must correct another erroneous statement you make 
under this head, that slaves '* are not permitted to receive 
the Lord's Gospel." As great a proportion of the slave 
population is christian, as there is of the white popuhition 
christian, either North or South. The whole race in Africa 
is heathen and pagan, while a large portion of the slaves in 
the United States are christians. The institution has 
brought them within the sound of the Gospel ; while, if 
they had remained in Africa, they would not have heard, 
and, of course, would not have *' received," the Gospel, and 
would have been pagans or heathens, as those that have re- 
mained there are. " God moves in a mysterious way." 
We can not comprehend fully wliy the chosen people of God 
were enslaved 430 years in Egypt; nor why the Africans 
have been enslaved in the United States 220 yeays, and 
still are enslaved. Let us "be not righteous overmuch; 
neither make ourselves overwise."^ Let us not get wise 
above what is written. The spirit only, seareheth the deep 
things of God.^ What he does not reveal to us in the Scrip- 
tures, we have no right to know, nor to try to know. 

4. Your fourth pio<jf that the institution of slavery is 

(1) Eccl. vil, 16. (2) 1 Cor, ii, 10, 11. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 223 

sinful, is the Golden Rule. Be careful, my beloved brother, 
that you do not get to " seeing visions and dreaming dreams." 
If the observance of this rule requires masters to sever the 
relation existing between them and their slaves, by freeing 
their slaves, how came it that the apostles, in writing to 
christian masters, and laying down the divine law to govern 
them, as masters, did not so stat«, and direct them to free 
their slavess ? If your construction of this rule is correct, 
the apostles were greatly at fault — Paul particularly, when 
he wrote to Philemon. According to 3^our construction of 
it, inasmuch as you and I are not willing to be reduced to 
the situation of subjects of the British, French, or Austrian 
empire, unless we endeavor to make those governments give 
proper political franchises to their subjects, we violate this 
precept; or, if we insist that our government should live in 
p^ace and amity with those empires, we violate the rule. I 
could, by many other instances, show the absu^Iity of your 
construction and application of this truly Goklen Rule. 
But I forbear at present. 

5, The fifth proof is what is said in James ii, 9. This is 
a law for christians in the assembly of saints, or house of 
'God, as is evident from what is said from the beginning of 
the chapter up to the ninth verse. Saints in the house of 
God should have no respect of persons among themselves, 
•on account of poverty or riches; and if they do, they sia. 
This law says nothing about what respect to persons chris- 
dans should pay outside of the house of God, and in the 
civil government, and, as to the civil government, its officers 
and institutions, one of which institutions, in part ef the 
States of this Union, is slavery. The law relating to this 
part of the conduct of christians, is found, Rom. xiii, 1-7 ; 
1 Pet. ii, 13-18; 1 Tim. vL, 1-5, &c. This last passage is 
the one you quote from so often about " wholesome words." 
I shall notice it at full length hereafter, as this number is 
too long already. If your construction of James ii, 9, is 
correct, Paul and Peter were wrong in the passages above 
quoted. But Paul and Peter were right, and so was • 
James ; for he spoke of having respect to persons in a dif- 
ferent relation than that of master and slave. 

6. Your sixth proof also misses the case. As I have 
filled so much space already, I must condense now, and 
^Uborate hereafter, if necessary. The master can feed hi-^ 



224 DISCUSSION OT SLATERY. 

hungry slave, give liira drink when thirsty, clothe him when 
naked, and visit him when sick or in prison, as fully and as 
well as he could if the relation of master and slave did not 
exist between them. Your inference from the premises, 
• " that as we treat the Lord's disciple, so we treat the Lord 
himself," and therefore, if yfe sell a christian slave, we sell 
the Lord, is not proved by the passage ; but I v»ill not now 
take the space to show it. Judas' crime was treason against 
the Lord o-f the universe — not the selling of him. 

7. My dear brother, this is as far off lame a proof that 
slavery is sinful, as the old covenant argument is, as a proof 
of sprinkling. ^ Do not take fright^ and be scared to deaths 
dear brother, when I say to you that the Lord is " minded 
to have slavery," avA show you " where ! where ! ! " la 
Matthew xxiii, 10, he avowed "to the multitude, and to his 
disciples,." that Christ was their 3Ia§ter, In John xiii, 13, 
he told his disciples that they called him Master and Lord,, 
and that they said well, or truly, *' for so I am." Paul 
said to. the church of God at Corinth, to them that were 
sanctified in Christ, and all that in every place call upon 
the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours,^ 
that they were hougjit with a price, by their said Master.^' 
Paul also taught that all, including you and me, brother 
Wiley, are slaves either of sin or of this Lord and Master^ 
that has bought us with so great a price,^ the first verse of 
which teaching, defines slavery. And he taught masters of 
slaves, that they also had a Master in heaven/ who is the 
Lord. 

In conclusion, I will say that you have given no law of 
the Lord of which slavery is a transgression. If slave- 
holding was in itself a sin, when the apostle was denouncing 
fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetuous, drunk- 
ards., revilers, extortioners, &c., and saying that none of 
them could inherit the kingdom of God, why did he not in- 
clude slaveholders^ if slaveholding is sinful ? The law of 
God, as to human action, is explicit and plain. What God 
forbids, he forbids plainly and directly. What he does not 
so forbid, we have no right by reasoning (vain philosophy 
inspiration calls it) to declare forbidden, and incorporate 
our conclusions, from our reasoning, into the law of God. 
The law given to Adam was plain and explicit. So has- 

;i) 1 Cor. i^ 2. (2) 1 Cor. vl, 2D. (Z). Rom. yi;, 16.-20.. {i) Eph. vi^ 3 ; CoL iv^ 1. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 225 

been every other law since given by God, as to the actions 
of men. If the institution of slavery is sinfal, it is so be- 
cause it is forbidden, and so forbidden as explicitly as 
drunkenness, adultery, &c., are. You have not found such 
a prohibition ; and to make out your affirmative, you must 
find such a one. 

Jer. Smith. 
Fehruary 2M, 1861. 



ELDER WILEY'S NUMBER TWO. 



Jer. Smixh — Been- Brother: — I'our reply to my first ar- 
ticle is now before me, and I feel called upon, before pro- 
ceeding with my regular file of argument, to correct the 
errors into which you have fallen, and to show that my ar- 
guments still remain with all their force against the sin of 
slavery. 

In regard to slavery being an institution of civil society^ 
you say : " It must be an institution of civil society or civil 
government, or it is an institution of the christian kingdom." 

N'ow, brother Smith, upon a moment's reflection, you 
will certainly see that you are mistaken. Y"ou certainly 
will admit that paganism, civilization, and Christianity, pro- 
duce three kinds of society. Barbarism is the le^jitimate 
out-growth of paganism ; civil institutions are the legitimate 
results of civilization ; and Christianity consists in strict 
conformity to the government of Christ's kingdom. From 
these facts, it is clearly seen, that slavery is not necessarily 
an institution either of civil society, or of the christian 
kingdom. It certainly can not properly belong to either. 
I am vv-illing, however, to admit that slavery has been forced 
into civil society ; but it is nevertheless a relic of paganism, 
and in fact forms no part of civil governments. Having 
now placed this item before you, in its proper light, I pass 
to notice your reply to my arguments, reviewing each item 
in proper order. 
' 1. You labor to construe- my first 'argument into what 



226 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

you would call a " sor)histical*sylIogisTn ;" but still you fail 
to meet my argument. Iw view of t!ie fact that God " made 
of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of 
the earth,"^ I claim that all men have one common origin. 
And as human laws are essential to the existence of the in- 
stitution of slavery, and as God has never given to man 
authority to reduce his (brother) fellow-man to a level with 
the animal of brute creation, as does the instititution of 
American slavery, and as the institution, in this particular, 
does conflict with the law of God, therefore it is a sinful in- 
stitution. This is the argument, and it remains with all its 
force against the sinful institution of slavery. 

Again, after quoting my words, *' that the institution of 
slavery reduces man to a level with the animal of the brute 
creation,'' you say : "This is not true, brother Wiley. The 
institution does no such thing." 

Now, brother Smith, I am willing to risk the whole con- 
troversy upon the truth of this declariHion. If it can not 
be shown that the institution of slavery reduces human be- 
ings to a level with animals of the ])rute creation — if it can 
not be shown that it makes property of men, wom^n, and 
children — then I am willing to give up the whole contro- 
versy. But if tJds can be shown, then you are bound to 
yield the whole question; for Avhen you say *' the institution 
does no such thing," you virtually admit that if it does, 
then it is a sinful institution. 

Again you say : " In almost every particular is the rela- 
tion between master and slave different from that between 
the owner and the animal of the brute creation." You 
have, hovf ever, failed to give one single instance in support 
of the truth of this declaration. You speak of the brutal 
conduct of master and slave, and of husband and wife, to- 
ward each other; but this comes not within a thousand miles 
of the issue between us. There is brutal conduct to be seen 
frequently between the owner and the horse or ox. The 
owner makes a brute of himself by becoming intoxicated, 
and abusing his property ; and the animal of the brute crea- 
tion becomes indignant, and retaliates with brute force upon 
the owner; but this does not prove that the owner and the 
brute sustain the same relation to each other that exists be- 

(1) Acts zvii, 26. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 227 

tween the husband and the wife, which woiihl be the case if 
your reasoning be true. You were talking about brutal 
conduct; I am talking of the sinful institution. 

Again, ^ou say that I quote a '' scrap of home-made 
Scripture." 1 quoted nothing for Scripture without giving 
book, chnpter, and verse. In harmony, however, with the 
great .truth, that " God made of one blood all nations of 
men,'' the following words were quoted : '-'- JSfone hut God 
can own a man.'' This Avas not quoted for Scripture; but 
it was spoken by one possessed of more wisdom than either 
of us ; and is certainly true. 

The following is rather a shrewd thought, and is not a 
little amusing. You say: "In this investigation, it is not 
incumbent upon any one to labor to show the righteousness 
of slavery." It ^vas indeecf thoughtful in you, brother 
Smith, to make this suggestion; but it does not release you 
from the solemn responsibility of '• laboring to show " that 
slavery is a righicoiis imillulioii. Every affirmative has its 
negative, and vice versa; therefore, if the institution of 
slavery is not sinful, it must be righteous. It must be either 
ri^i'ht or wron!*;. 

2. In regard to my argument based upon the institution 
of marriage, you say : " The institution of slavery is not 
violative of the marriage rights, any more tlian is civil gov- 
ernment itself." Your proof of this assertion is, that civil 
government may, and often does, separate husband and 
wife, &c., "when the public defence, the public good, or 
public justice requires it." Now, dear brother, will you 
point to the law, even in our own State, that will separate 
husband and wife, in the same sense that slavery does this ? 
No, you can not do it! Never! no, never!! You may 
point to the case of the criminal, taken from his companion 
for crime, and sent to prison or to death; but this is not a 
parallel case. The institution of American slavery — not 
for public good, not for public safety, not for public justice, 
not for the commission of crime — ruthlessly separates hus- 
band and wife, thus sundering God's institution of holy 
matrimony. If such an institution is not sinful, then it is 
in vain to labor to show that anything on earth is sinful. 

3. In regard to my argument based upon Luke iv, 18, 19, 
you say : " Among the things that the prophet said he 
(Christ) should do, was ' to preach deliverance to the cap- 



228 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

tives.'" This is right, brother Smith. And he ^Yas to 
*' preach the Gospel to the poor ;" to " heal tiie broken- 
hearted ;" to preach the acceptable year of the Lord." 'f ho 
divine Savior has done all this, but did it through his in- 
spired apostles. The prediction of the prophet, made some 
700 years before the Savior's advent into the world, em- 
braced more than the simple reading of the two verses. 
Preaching the Gospel to the poor, healing the broken- 
hearted, preaching deliverance to the captives, the recover- 
ing of sight to the blind, setting at liberty them that are 
bruised, preaching the acceptable year of the Lord, were 
all embraced in the work of the Lord's apostle, in preach- 
ing the Gospel to the Vr^orld.^ Jesus said in prayer to his 
Father, "As thou has sent me into the world, even so have 
I also sent them into the world. "'^ Again the Savior says : 
" lie that believeth on me. the vrorks that I do shall he do 
also ; and greater works than these shall he do ; because I 
go unto my Father."^ Now, brother Smith, from these 
fads, you are bound to admit that the minister that 
^'preaches deliverance to the captives," preaches as did the 
Lord and his apostles; and that the institution that capti- 
vates and enslaves men, women, and children, is a sinful 
institution. 

4. In regard to my argument based upon the Savior's 
words, " therefore all things wdiatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law 
and the prophets," you say : " Be careful, my beloved bro- 
ther, that you do not get to * seeing visions and dreaming 
dreams.' " This is as strong a point as you made against my 
fourth argument ; and as I can't meet it, I will pass witii 
this remark : that no man can practice the institution of 
slavery, as it is practiced in the South, without violating 
this rule given by the Savior. 

5. Your reply to my fifth argument goes to establish the 
truth of my position. The argument is founded upon the 
following passage : " But if ye have respect to persons, ye 
commit sin, and are convicted of the law as transgressors."'^ 
And you say, " this is a law for christians in the assembly, 
or the house of Go(L" Again you say : " This law says 
nothing about what respect to persons christians should pay 

(1) See Acts xxvi, 16, 17, 18 ; Eph. iii, 8. (.3) Jobn xiv, 12. 

(2) Jgha xvii, 18. (4) James ii, 9. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER VvlLEY. 229 

outside the house of God," &c. Now, if you mean by "the 
assembly, or house of God," the cliurch of Christ, then you 
admit the truth of my position. But if you mean nothing 
more than the association of christians assembled in a house, 
then you have two laws, one to govern christians in regard 
to the respect they have for each other when they are at 
meeting, and another law by which to regulate their con- 
duct toward each other, when meeting is over. 

Now I aver that the apostle James furnishes most conclu- 
sive evidence to show that the institution or law of slavery, 
is sinful. He puts in contrast most forcibly tlie lavr of lib' 
erty, and the law or institution of slavery. He says: 
*' AVhoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty/, and chn- 
tinueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer 
of the vrork, this man ehall be blessed in his deed.''^ Again 
he says : " So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be 
judged by the law of liberty."^ The laio of liberty is here 
put in contrast vrith the law of slavery. '^ The perfect law 
of liberty" is the "Gospel law" — "the lavr of the spirit 
of Ijfe" — and it admits of no partiality or respect to one 
above another, as the lavr of slaver}^ does. Thus the apos- 
tle shows clearly, that the institution of slavery conflicts 
with the Gospel of Christ, and is therefore a sinful institution. 

6. In reply to this argument based, on Matt, xxv, 34—16, 
you say of me: "Your inference fi-om the premises, Hhat 
as v/e treat the Lord's disciples, so we treat the Lord,' is 
not p;oved'l)y the passage ; but I will not now undertake to 
show it." With an expectation that you will try to meet 
this argument at some future time, I pass for the present. 

7. As you approach this argument you say : " Do not take 
a fright, and be scared to death, dear brother, when I say 
to you that the Lord is 'minded to have slaver}^' and shov>' 
you where!" You then cite Matt, xxiii, 10; John xiii, 13, 
to prove that Christ was a Master ; for he said to the disci- 
ples that ho v>-as their Master, and they called him Master. 
You then quote 1 Cor. vi, 20, to prove that all christians 
are alave^ This looks well. But in order to use this argu- 
ment to advantage in this discussion, you should have 
pointed to the passage of the Savior's " slave code," where 
he sold his slaves — where he separated husband and v*ife, 
parents and children, brothers and sisters, &c. — and if this 

(1) James i, 25. (2) James ii, 12. 



230 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

can not be found in the Lord's slave code, nor in his '* mind," 
nor in his practice, then y/)ur labor is all lost. But this is 
not the worst of it. The Lord sajs to his disciples : " But 
be not ye called Rabbi (Master) for one is your Master 
even Chnst, and all ye are brethren."^ This puts an ever- 
lasting veto upon all human slave codes. Now, dear bro- 
ther, you say ^' what the Lord commands must be done;" 
and so say 1. There can be no christian masters without 
disregarding the Lord's word. But this is "not all. The 
apostle says : " If the son therefore shall make you //eg, ye 
shall be free indeed.'^ This shows that the christian is the 
Lord's freeman ; and he '' shall be free indeed." To become 
a servant of Jesus Christ then, destroys every relation that 
would make one man the property or slave of another ; or 
that would allow one man to be called the master of an- 
other. This is what the Gospel does. You claim that '' if 
the institution of slavery is sinful, it is so because it is for- 
bidden ; and so forbidden as ,explicitly as drunkenness, 
adultery, &e." Now, brother Smith, you certainly know 
that getting drunk is not an institution, neither is commit- 
ting adultery an institution ; such actions are corrupt, 
wicked, brutal actions, and are the results of the sinful in- 
stitution of slavery. American slavery is an institution, 
and it does tolerate the practice of adultery, and is there- 
fore a sinful institution. And as certainly as adultery is 
sinful, the institution that tolerates it is sinful ; and as cer- 
tainly as adultery is forbidden, so certainly is the institution 
of slavery that admits it forbidden. 

Having now examined your reply, and removed every 
thing out of the way, I v/ill proceed with my regular file of 
arguments. 

8.. This argument is founded upon the following passage, 
embracing the law of love. It reads as follows : *' Render 
therefore to all their dues ; tribute to whom tribute is due ; 
custom to whom custom ; fear to whom fear ; honor to whom 
honor. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another; 
for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, 
thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou 
shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt 
not covet ; and if there be any other commandment, it is 
briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, thou shalt love 

a) Matt, snii, 8. ' 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 231 

thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neigh- 
bor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."^ 

The point embraced in this passage is this : The Gospel 
law is a law of love ; and as it requires its advocates to love 
fhei7' neighbors as themselves, and as love is the fulfilling of 
the law, it " therefore briefly comprehends " all the acts of 
benevolence neces,sary to adorn the christian character, and 
puts an everlasting end to the institution of slavery, which 
reduces human beings to a level with the animal of the 
brute creation. 

Here I plant myself, and here I expect to stand, fearless 
of anything that can be said in favor of the righteousness 
of the institution of American slavery. 

This lavf of ,love comprehends, in one general view, all 
the good contemplated in the Gospel of Christ ; and con- 
demns every species of wickedness — yea, everything that 
opposes the principles of the Gospel of Christ. Card-play- 
ing, horse-racing, and polygamy, are not once named in the 
New Testament; but the Gospel law, called by Paul " the 
law of the spirit of life ;'' called by James " the perfect law 
of liberty," condemns all such wickedness. 

9. This argument is based upon the following words of 
the apostle : " Behold, the hire of the laborers v/ho have 
reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by 
fraud, crieth; and the cries of them which have reaped are 
entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.'*^ The whole 
connection in the fifth chapter of James goes to show that 
this is a nractical demonstration of slavery, and justly in- 
curs the judgments of God. American slavery is no mod- 
ification of the above case. If the Bible condemns any 
thing, it condenms oppression ; and if there is anything 
upon this broad green earth that can rightfully be called 
oppression, it is the institution of American slavery. 

Now, brother Smith, you must come right up to the 
work, and meet these arguments, or yield the cause, and 
admit that the institution of xVmerican slavery is a sinful 
institution. 

Thomas Wiley. 

March 20th, 18G1. 



(1) Rom. xiii, T-10. (2) James v, i. 



232 DISCUSSION OF' SLAVERY. 

JER. SMITH'S REPLY NUMBER TWO. 



My Dear Brother Wiley : — Your number two is before 
me. 

Clear ideas are essential to correct reasoning and just 
judgment. To have clear ideas, we must have correct defi- 
nitions of the terms used; or, rather, we must understand 
the terms used in the sense in which they are used. Hence, 
I will try again, to explain the sense in which certain terms 
are used in this our friendly investigation. 

In the proposition, Slavery is an institution of civil society^ 
or civil goveryiment^ let us settle what is meant by the terms 
civil society or civil (jovernment ; for the two are used as 
synonymous. 

Civil government is used in contra-distinction to ecclesias- 
tical government. This nomenclature arose more than a 
thousand years ago, and really grew out of papistical notions 
and ideas. Civil and ecclesiastical were the terms used to 
designate the two orders of government; secular and holy 
the terms used to designate the officers of each respectively. 
The government of the Roman Erxiperors and their oiScers, 
were called civil and secular ; while the government of the 
church (as it was called) and its officers were designated as 
ecclesiastical and holy. That nomenclature was carried into 
the common law when it arose in England; civil government 
was used to designate the government of the King and 
Parliament ; and ecclesiastical govermnent was applied to the 
church or religious government. "We borrowed these terms, 
and the ideas conveyed by them, from the common law of 
England, which we inherited from her. So civil govern- 
merit or civil society means the governm.ent of the State, or 
secular government, whether it exists among a pagan peo- 
ple or a christian people, and whether the people were civi- 
lized or barbarous. I3arbarism did not always exist among 
pagans ; for the Greeks and Romans were pagans, and yet 
they were the most civilized and polished nations of antiquitj^ 
But Christianity, lived up to truly, will, of course, produce 
a higher state of civilization, than the Greeks and Romans 
attained to. But I am wanderins; too ftir off. 

Civil is the counterpart of ecclesiastical. We, of this 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. '233 

reformation, in our designation of things, usitig terms ns 
we have for near forty 3'ears, wouhi use the terms human 
government and dloine government to desi;j;nate them. 
The way they are designated in the christian Scriptures is 
this: Civil or secular governments, as designated by Catho- 
lics and the common law, and human governments, as we 
designate them, are, in tlie chrii-tian Sciiptures, called " the 
kingdoms of this world;" while ecclesiastical and hoh gov- 
ernment, as designated by Catholics and the common law, 
stai.d, iii their notions, in the place of v^-hat we call divine 
govcnimcrit, and in the place of what is designated in the 
christian Scriptures as *' the kingdom of our Lord and Savior 
Jesus Christ." In the nomenclature of the christian Scrip- 
tures, rhere are but two governments — the kingdoms of this 
w^orld, and the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. 1'he 
kingdoms of tliis world include all human governments, 
whether savage, barbarous, or civilized; and the kingdom 
of the Lord is the divine government during the christian 
dispensation. When that dispensation shall end, the Lord 
will surrender the kinrrdom to God.^ But durin«r its ex- 
istence, it is, in the Scriptures, called the kingdom of the 
Lorrl Jesus Christ. 

So the terms civil government, civil sociefy, is used, and 
•will be used by n)e throughout this discussion, in the sei;se 
of human governments , kingdoms of ihistvorld; whWe diviyte 
government and divine laiv will be used to designate the gov- 
ernment of the Lord Jesus Christ and his laws. And, in 
tlnit sense, I say that American slavery is an institution of 
civil government; and you agree to it in that sense ; for in 
\ftiir last, you say " human laws are essential to the in- 
stitution of slavery." So much for this ; and I hope we 
will understand one another hereafter, and that you will 
attach the same idea to the words I use, that I do myself, 
when I use the phrases civil society, civil government, and 
divine goveriAinent and divine law. 

Another preliminary matter relating to definitions, and 
the having of clear ideas of things about which we talk. 

You set out by quoting from John the definition of sin, 
that it is a transgressio?i of the laiv. I accepted it, because 
it is of divine authority, and hence true. But I went on 
further, to give the Scripture definition of righteousness, 

* (1)1 Cor. XV, 24-28. 

16 



234 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

that it was doing what God commanded. Sin then, is the 
traruujresHton of God^s law; and righteousness is (^oiW(7 /n's 
eommandmcnls — keeping his law. Let us keep these ideas 
clear in our minds, brother WiLEZ, wiien we go to examine 
to see whether anything is sinful or righteous. If it is a 
transgression of God's law, it is sin ; if it is doing a com- 
mand of God, it is righteous. Hence, doing a thing not 
forbidden of God, is not sin; and doing a tiling not com- 
manded of God, is not righteousness. Hence, to make 
slavery sinful, it must be forbidden : to make it righteous, 
it must be commanded. You have undertaken to prove it 
sinful ; I have not undertaken to prove it righteous. But 
you seem to think that my denying that it is sinful, is aa 
averment that it is righteous. Not so, m^y brother. But 
you say "it must be either right or wrong." That may be 
true, and still it may not be either sinful or righteous, in 
the Scripture sense of sin and righteousness. I will try 
and show you that this is so. To migrate, or travel from 
one place to another, may be right or wrong, that is, it may 
be proper or improper, expedient or inexpedient, for any 
particular person to do so at a particular time ; but it is not 
i'ighteousness to do it unless it is commanded of God, nor 
sinful to do it unless it is prohibited of God. Now, when 
Abram left Ilaran and went to Canaan, he did an act of 
righteousness, because God had commanded him to do so : 
and, if the apostles had gone by the way of the Gentiles, 
or into the cities of the Samaritans, when the Lord sent 
them, during his ministry, they would have sinned, because 
he commanded them not to do so. Any other person that 
went at the time Abram went, or at any other time, from 
Haran to Canaan, did not *' do righteousness " by that act; 
nor did any other persons that went by the way of the 
Gentiles, or into the cities of the Samaritans, sin by so 
doing. A great many other instances could be given from 
Scripture to the same effect. Hence, we see the necessity, 
if we want to understand *' the mind of Christ " and "grow 
in the knowledge of" him, to keep correct ideas of sin and 
righteousness before our minds when we presume to call 
anything sinful or righteous. 

I will now proceed to review what you have said in youE 
last, under the respective numerical heads. 

1. As you seem to think I have " failed " to give a single 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 235 

instance in support of the truth of the dechiration that " in 
alnaost every particuhir, is the relation between master and 
slave different from that between the owner and the animal 
of the brute creation ;" and reiterate the assertion that 
*' the institution of shivery reduces human beings to a level 
with animals of the brute creation," I will elaborate these 
matters some further. 

Does the institution of slavery deprive human beings of 
speech, of thought, of the reasoning powers, of the mental 
faculties generally, of the affections, of the erect attitude or 
upright position in which God formed man to go, of an im- 
mortal spirit, and of religious aspirations toward his 
Maker? It must do all this, and even more, before it can 
be truly said that it reduces human beings to a level with 
animals of the brute creation ; for they lack all these things. 
I can not now call to mind but one particular in which the 
relation between master and slave, and the relation between 
the owner and the animal of the brute creation, is the same, 
and that particular is the relation of owner and owned. In 
everything else that I can now think of, the relation between 
them is different. The relation between the master and the 
slave is that of man and man, with all the concomitants of 
conversation, society, &c., &c., including the high and holy 
relation of brethren in the kingdom of Christ ; while the 
relation between the owner and the animal of the brute 
creation, is simply that of man and brute, differing in almost 
every respect from that of man and man. 

Now, though you are "willing to risk the whole contro- 
versy on the truth" of the declaration that ''the institution 
does no such thing" as reduce human beings to the level of 
brutes, I shall not hold you to it, though I have shown that 
it "does no such thing." My object is to convince your 
judgment, not to obtain a mere polemic victory, in this 
friendly investigation. It is best, however, as I think you 
will see now, to come down to sober truth, and drop all 
such exaggerated assertions that have been asserted and re- 
asserte<l so long by excited, if not demented persons, that 
many good people have unfortunately fallen into the belief 
of them, without examination as to their truth. 

I did not complain that you did not quote chapter and 
verse for your home-made Scripture, nor that you quoted 
it for Scripture. I only tried to induce you to rely upon 



236 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

Scripture itself, and not upon home made scraps of any 
kind. I do not know who ia the author of the scrap, '-none 
but God can own a man," and do not pretend to say Init 
that lie was '^ p(»ssessed of more wis(h)m than either of us;" 
but I have sai«l that '' it is contradictory of divine Scripture, 
as will appear before we get through this discussion," which 
I now reiterate, and add to it, that the scrap is untrue, not- 
withstandiojr the wisdom of its author, as any one may be 
convinced who will travel from Cincinnati south to tlieOulf 
of Mexico, in svliich travel he will find that others than God 
not only can, hut actually do, own many men, 

Accordiikg to your own opinion of your first argument, 
as you state the argument in your last number, thaf slaverij 
redueen man fo the Itiud of I he brute creation^ is a necessary 
part; and as I have shown that proposition to be untrue, 
that arguruerit f.nls. As I said in my first, this argument 
is a fallacy, 8trippetl of all verbiage, it is this: All men 
have a. common origin, therefore slavery is sinful ! Most 
illogical ! And it is contradicted by a fact patent fo every 
one. Parents a^d children are of the same blood, and yet 
parents have property in their cliildren, and tlie children 
property in their parents, both by civil law and divine law. 

But there is aijother thing that exists in this argument, 
that exists in nearly all the others, and I had as well notice 
it here, ooce ior all. It is, that you come to the conclusion 
that a thii»g is sinful, through thr-ce or four deductions fro»n 
some passage of Scripture, or from some principle taught 
in the Scri[)tuies. IMow, that method of proceeding is 
called in the Scriptures ''philosophy and vain deceit, after 
the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, unvl 
not after (or according to) Christ;" and the command is, to 
"beware lest any man spoil"' us through it. To tiiis I 
will at this time add, that from the day thai God put Adam 
into the gai-deu of J^Men, and gave him the law of his cou- 
duct, down to the close of the book of llevelations, tlieie 
is no recorded case of God's holding any one accountai>le 
foi- a sin, and as a sinner, for violating something that was 
arrived at only by some two, three or four deductions fr'uu 
something that God had said. And in all cases where God 
held any one accountable as a sinner, it was for the viola- 
tion of something that God had directly said. Sin and 

(1) Col. ii,8. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 237 

righteousness, based upon inference=;, built up tbe papacy, 
and, with other things, brought on the long night of moral 
darkness, which has now, thank God, nearly passed awny. 
We should come out not only from Bablyon, but from her 
practices. If we follow her practices, we are so far a part 
of her. Coming out of the communion and ecclesiastical 
body of the Man of Sin, does not prevent us from being a 
part of the Man of Sin, if we follow his practices and do 
his work. We must not only come out of Babylon, but we 
must leave there everything Babylonish, even though it be 
" a goodly Babylonish garment,"^ of reasoning men to act 
from their deductions from what God has said, instead of 
acting directly from what he has said, without the deduc- 
tion or the inference. I say these things that you may re- 
flect upon them, and examine the good word of God to see 
whether these things are so : and that you may cease to try 
to prove slavery sinful by inference, and begin to look up 
direct proof of its sinfulness. 

2. The laws of Indiana divorce men and their wives, and 
take chihiren from one or both of the parents, as the case 
may be, for all time to come ; and slave laws do it for no 
longer a time. Indiana has never had occasion to do it — 
but she may; and other States of the Union have had occa- 
sion to drjst't husbands, fathers and brothers, from wives, 
children and sisters, and take them to battle where they 
were slain and never returned. And the European govern- 
ments are now constantly doing this. 

I must correct another incorrect assertion, brother Wiley. 
The institution does not " ruthlessly separate " husband and 
wife. Bad masters may, and perhaps sometimes do; but 
not a thousandth part of the instances tliat have been con- 
stantly represented throughout the North, during the last 
ten or fifteen years, ever existed in fact. When masters 
do so, it is their sin, and is so set down in the law of God 
governing in the premises; and not a word of comlemna- 
tion, in tliat place, of the iiiMiiution or relation existing be- 
tween the master and the slave, is found. 

3. I admit, brother Wiley, that what the apostles preached 
and taught, is the preaching and teaching of the Savior; 
for he sent them as he was sent. But please to cite me to 
the passage where either he or the apostles preached " de- 

(1) JoBh. Yii, 21.. 



238 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

liveraiice to the captives,''' in your sense of deliverance, to- 
"wit, freeing the slaves, (and all the country they all preached 
and taught in was full of slaves,) and that will show that it 
is right to prea(di abolitionism, and that your construction 
of tiie prophecy that the Savior read,^ is ri^j^ht. The pas- 
sages you cite mc to, Acts xxvi, lG-18 ; Eph. iii, 8, say 
nothing about slavery, freeing the slaves, or even about 
captives. Tlie first is a rehearsal, by Paul, of his conver- 
sion.; and the second says he was to preach /he unsearchable 
riches of Christ — not that the slaves should be freed, nor 
that slavery was sinful. Would it not be well for preachers 
to do that way now ? 

4. The Golden Rule. I warned you about visions and 
dreams, because you had, in your first number, mentioned 
visions and dreams. You wholly fail to answer my inquiry, 
why, if your construction of the Golden Rule is right, the 
apostles, in writing to christian masters and slaves, <lid not 
tell them so, and direct the masters to free the slaves. 
You, however, close with th^ broad assertion, " that no man 
can practice the institution of slavery, as it is practiced in 
the 8outh, without violating this rule." What a pity that 
Paul made so great a mistake in Philemon's case, in sending 
Onesimus back to serve him, instead of telling Philemon 
that h-e could not retain Onesimus as a slave, without viola- 
ting the Lord's Golden Rule ; and that he must let Onesi- 
mus go ; and that if he did not, he would sin. But it needed 
the light of modern wisdom, without revelation, to so leurn 
Paul bis duty in that case, and the other cases where he 
wrote to masters as to hov*' they should demean themselves 
to their slaves. 

Let us examine this Golden Rule a little, and see whether 
you understand it. Li creeds and I?rger and shorter 
chatechisms, and in spelling books, when I was a boy, it was 
put down thus : Whatsoever ye would that men should do to 
you^ in like circumstances, do ye even so to them. P>ut that 
is not the rule; yet your interpretation makes that the rule. 
But the rule is : W hatsoever you would that men shoidd do 
to you, do ye even so to them. Let us apply this to the mas- 
ter and slave directly. Does the master want the slave to 
free him? No: because the master is free. Plence, he 
need not free the slave, as he does not want the slave to 



(1) Luke iv, 18, 19. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 239 

free him. Does the slave want the master to free him ? 
Though it might be, and is otherwise with most of the 
shives, let the answer be, yes. But the slave can not do to 
the master what he wants the master to do to him, because 
the master is already free. So that in the case in discus- 
sion, to-wit, that between the master and the slave, where 
the slave wants to be liberated, the Golden Rule does not 
direct the master to liberate the slave, and the master's 
failing to do it, is not a viohition of the Golden Rule, unless 
the phrase, in like circumstances, be interpolated info the rule. 
All your argument from this rule requires that interpola- 
tion into it. Brother Wiley, we do not want the Scriptures 
interpolated ; and it seems now, from the examination, that 
Paul and Peter were right, in not telling christian masters, 
in their epistles, that siav^holding was a violation of the 
Lord's Golden Rule. 

5. The Lord has two sets of laws for his disciples ; one 
to govern them and their conduct in his house and kingdom, 
and with and towards their brethren in Christ, and one to 
govern them in their conduct " towards them that arc with- 
out,"' and as being members or subjects of the kingdoms of 
this world. But to '* rightfully divide the word of truth,'^ 
on this suhject, will come up hereafter, and ^ill take too 
much space here. The 'Maw of liberty" mentioned by 
James is not a law to free slaves who are slaves by the laws 
of the kingdoms of this world ; but I forbear to elaborate 
-and show that at present. 

6. I can now only briefly say, that worshipping the 
Lord's disciple, is not worshipping him ; hence the passage, 
Matt. XXV, 34-46, does not prove that as we treat the 
Lord's disciples, we treat him. But more of this hereafter. 

7. The Savior is a good Master, and keeps his Father's 
commandments; and hence does not violate any of the 
divine laws relating to masters. And as to selling, separa- 
ting husband and wife, &c., which is uppermost so much in 
heated imaginations, I have not space to elaborate now. I 
will only at this time briefly say, that he chose Paul, saying 
at the time he "captivated" him, that he would ''show him 
how great things he had to suffer" for him;^ which things 
Paul did suff'er, even to the giving up of his life. Stephen, 
James, Peter, Paul, and, it is said, all the apostles except 

(1) Col. iv, 5; 1 Cor. v, 12, 13. (2) 2 Tim. ii, 15. (.3) Acta ix, 18.~ 



240 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

John, were *'sold" even unto death, in the service of the 
Lord, as well as into prison, to stripes, <fec. So much is 
not exacted of slaves in any State of this Union ! The 
Lord took upon him the form of a slave, and was obedient 
unto death, even' the death of the Cross, which, hy the 
Roman law, was inflicted only on slaves and malefactors. 
Such obedience is not exacted of any slave in the United 
States. This was the "mind" that was in Christ, that we 
are directed to have in us.^ Look at the passage carefully, 
and you will see that for his so demeaning himself, he was 
highly exalted, and given a name above every other name. 
We, by being like-minded, and conducting ourselves as he 
did, will be exalted also. With an abolition imagination, 
a7id manner of speaking of things.^ but actually sticking to 
the facts, and not exaggerating or adding to the facts re- 
corded of these slaves of the Lord, and the Lord himself, 
quite a raw-head and bloody-bones account could be framed. 
But I will not do it. Such exaggerated pictures, it is not 
proper for christians to draw, even of matters pertaining to 
the laws and administration of the civil government, much 
less of those appertaining to the kingdom of the Lord. 
Christians' speech should ** be seasoned with salt,"^ and 
they should think on " whatsoever things are true,"" and 
not contemplate exaggerated fictions. When I have space, 
I shall dwell somewhat at length upon this branch of the 
inquiry. I will now only say, that in the kingdom of God, 
Vfe have but one Pope, that is. Father, who is God; one 
Lord, that is. Master, who is Christ; and all of us are 
brethren ;^ while in the kingdoms of this world, there are 
gods many and lords many.^ And the divine law gives 
rules to govern christians in their conduct in both king- 
doms. And becoming a member of the Lord's kingdom, 
does not free us from the kingdoms of this world, and -from 
our duties in them, while we live on earth. 

8. I can notice this but very briefly now. " Render 
therefore to all their dues." What dues, brother Wiley? 
Why, dues under the civil government, its laws, institutions 
and regulations. Slaves, in our Constitution, are defined 
to be persons held to service by the laws of a State. The 
services of the slave, therefore, in our kingdoms of this 



(1) Phil, ii, 5-9. (3) Vhil. iv, 8. (5) 1 Cor. viii».5. 

(2) Col. iv, 6. (i) Matt, xxiii, 8-10. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 241 

world, are " dues " to the master. This divine law, to ren- 
der to all their dues, is an injunction to the christian slave 
to render to his master the vservice " due " the master by 
the laws of the State; to the chri.stian subject of a mon- 
archy, to render the taxes military an<l other services "due'' 
the monarch, by the laws of the kingdom; to the christian 
citizen of this republic, to render to the other States, and 
to the citizens of the other States, their " dues " under the 
Constitution and laws, that is, to let them have peace and 
quiet, and to give them liindness and c-airtesy in our con- 
duct towards them personally, and protection to them and 
their institutions, indudituj the slaves held to service to them, 
by the laws of their States, &g. Tfiese are their '-dues" 
under our Constitution, and the Union formed thereby. 
More on this subject hereafter. 

Card- playing and horse racing are modern sins, manufac- 
tured by the same methods that manufactured the Man of 
Sin. They may, and generally do, lead to sin ; but are not 
sinful by the law of the Lord. Polygamy is forbidden in 
the christian Scriptures. 

9. Because those who hire laborers to reap down their 
fields, and then keep back the hire of the laborers by fraud, 
commit sin thereby that entereth into the ears of the Lord 
of Sabaoth; therefore, slavery is sinful! This is the argu- 
ment. This must be a curious passage of Scripture ; for 
it seems that anything can be proved by it. An excellent 
brother, who had insisted rather unsuccessfully that I should 
pay him for- certain of his missionary labor that he said he 
had been doing, finally thundered this passage at me. In 
reply, I simply informed him that I had not hired him to reap 
any field for me. So a christian master can reply to- you, 
that he has not hired his slaves ; and in addition to that, he 
can say, that he regularly " renders " to his slaves their 
"dues." Brother Wiley, this passage fits neither my mis- 
sionary brother's case, nor yours. 

I have tried to "come right up to the work, and meet'* 
your arguments, brother Wiley; and I apprehend that you 
will do me the justice to admit that I have "come right up" 
at least: I think I have met them. 

Yours in christian bonds, 

Jer. Smith. 

March 2m, 1861. 



242 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

ELDER WILEY'S NUMBER THREE, 



Dear Brother Smith : — Your reply number two is now 
before me, and I am truly glad that our labors have' been 
characterized thus far by a kind christian spirit. 

In your last article, you labor extensively to show the 
meaning of certain words and phrases; and to prove that, 
according to your use of them, American slaveiy is an in- 
stitution of *' civil society." . 

You define "civil society or civil government" to mean 
all human cfovernynenii^^ whether savage, barbarous, or civi- 
lized. And, in " that sense," you say : " American slavery 
is an institution of civil society or civil government."*- And 
you further say, '^ that is the sense in which you have used, 
and intend to use these terms." In your definitions you 
have given the legal or technical meaning of those terms; 
and your solution of the question stands thus : Civil society 
or civil government means all human governments^ savage 
and barbarous, as well as civilized. Now, brother Smitu, 
I cheerfully accept your definitions ; for you have fully sus- 
tained the truth of my position on this point. 

My position in the very commencement of this discus- 
sion was, that slavery originated in paganism, and that its 
tendencies are back to paganism again. I did not claim 
that slavery is paganism, but that it originated in paganism, 
and that its tendencies are back to where it originated. 

In my second article, it was shown that barbarism is the 
legitimate outgrowth of paganism ; and that barbarism, 
paganism, and civilization, form three kinds of society : and 
this you admit. And as the barbarous institution of slavery, 
a relic of paganism, has been forced into civil society, it 
therefore forms no part of civil society in fact; it belongs 
to civil society, only in your qualified sense, which is, that 
civil society means savage^ and barbarous society. This 
was my position at tlio commencement of this discussion, 
and this is the truth of the case. Slavery is indeed a sav- 
age, barbarous, sinful institution, turn it which way you 
-will. The proposition, that ''slavery is an institution of 
civil society," is not the question we proposed to discuss ; 
but still I am much pleased with what you have said upon 
it. Your definitions have fully established the truth of my 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 243 

position ; nud it will hereafter be clearly understood, that 
slavery belongs to savage, barbarous society, technically 
called " civil society." And it will be remembered also, 
that every effort you make, brother Smith, to show that 
American slavery is not sinful, you arc laboring to show 
that savage barbarity is not sinful. And if it can be shown 
that savage barbarity is sinful, then is American siaverij sin- 
ful. And if you admit that savage barbarity is sinful, (and 
this you must do) then you admit, upon purely logical prin- 
ciples, that slavery is a sinful institution. From these con- 
clusions there is no way of escape. 

The next item to be noticed is the criterion by which the 
proposition in debate must be settled. It will be remem- 
bered, that at the commencement of this our friendly inves- 
tigation, it was shown that sin is the transgression of God's 
law; and to this you agree. It was also shown that "all 
unrighteousness is sin." Now, according to these defini- 
tions of sin, given in the precise words of the Scripture, it 
will be seen, that whatever an individual does that is not 
righteousness, must be sinful. And hence I repeat it, that 
slavery must be either right or wrong. 

But you labor to show that sin and righteousness depend 
entirely upon positive express commands. That to do a 
positive express cammand, is righteousness ; and to do what 
is positively and expressly forbidden, is sinful. And, upon 
the principl<e of positive and ^express requisitions, you sus- 
pend the wiwle of the righteousness or sinfulness of the 
acts of the human family. And, in order to establish the 
truth of this position, you illustrate by two given cases: 
the case of Abram and the Lord's apostles. You say : 
" When Abram went from Haran to Canaan, he did an act 
of righteousness, because God commanded him to do so;" 
and ''if the apostles had gone by the way of the Gentiles, 
or into the cities of the Samaritans, when the Lord sent 
them during his ministry, they would have sinned, because 
he commanded them not to do so.'^ Then you add : " Any 
other person that went at the time Abram went, or at any 
other time, from Haran to Canaan, did not do righteous- 
ness by that act; nor did any other person that went by the 
way of the Gentiles, or into the cities of the Samaritans, 
sin by so doing." 

Here is your argument, brother Smith, to establish the 



244 i>iscu:^sioif of slavery. 

truth of your proposition, that the sinfulness and righteous- 
ness of man wJiolly depends upoa disobedience or obi*dicnce 
of the positive, express commands of God. You have com- 
mitted a fatal error at this point, as I will now proceed to 
show. 

While there is no man Avho believes more in positive 
divine institutions than myself, and while no one believes 
more fully than I do, tliat God has given to mun, in his 
written word, a full and complete plan of salvation, still 
there are moral obligations and moral duties, as clearly set 
forth in th» Gospel, as there are positive express command- 
ments. There are positive^ moral, and relative obligations 
or duties to be performed. And as no one but Abrnm was 
commanded to go to Canaan, in the same sense that he was, 
therefore it was a special case, and comes within the pur- 
view of moral obligations of the Gospel of Christ. As 
well might an individual bring up the case of the thief on 
the Cross, to prove i\\q general rule orphan of salvation, re- 
vealed in the christian Scriptures, as to bi-ing up Abrara's 
case to establish the truth of your position. Sending out 
the- apostles was another sy^maZ case, a parallel case with 
the one just examined; and no more. establishes the truth 
of your position, than the case of the palsied man being 
miraculously cu>-ed, establishes t\iQ plan of salvation. 

In order to show more forcibly the total failure of your 
position, and to exhibit the moral obligations set forth ,in 
the Golden Rule — the law of love — I will instance a few 
cases. There is, or has been, systems, legalized systems of 
gambling, called lotteries, in our country; and still there is 
not one express command in the Scriptures about them. 
Arc we, therefore, left in the dark on this subject? Or 
could we all eniijaoje in such business and not commit sin? 
Again, men assemble together at the card-table, stake their 
money, and play cards, win or lose ; and still there is no 
positive^ express command on the subject. Can individuals, 
therefore, practice gambling of this kind and not commit 
sin ? Or does the inoral government of the Lord Jesus 
Christ — "the Golden Rule" — condemn all such things? It 
most assuredly does. Once more: Were a company of 
persons, in a clandestine manner, to place some obstruction 
in the pathway between your mansion-house and your office, 
and cause you to get some of your limbs broken, could they 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 245 

do so, and not commit sin? Tbere is no such thing posi- 
tively or exprcfeslj forbi(hien. But the Ifiw of love — tlio 
moral principle ot the gospel — clearly forbids and condemns 
all such things. 

Many more cases might be offered ; but one more \vill 
Bufiice for the present. Were a company of persons to 
fasten the iron grasp upon y(ui and me, brother Smith, and 
force us and our families from our comfoi'table dwellings, 
and place us entirely in the same condition that the instiiu- 
tion of American slaverv places human beings, could such 
an act be dorie and no sin committed by it? Let tliis be 
ansvvered according to the Golden Rale — according to the 
law of love, and the whole question will be forever settled. 

The next item is in reference to the institution of slavery 
redua'uig human beings to a level with the animal of the 
brute creation. 

On tins point you say : " Does i\\e institution of slavery 
deprive liuman beings of speech, of thought, of the reason- 
ing powers, of the mental ficulties generally, of the affec- 
tions," &c. 

Now, brother Smitk, I did not say that slavery makes of 
human beings animals of the brute creation, as you Avould 
have me to way, or as your reply indicates ; for that would 
be a contradiction of terms; but I did say, that the institu- 
tion of slavery i-educes human beings to a level with the an- 
imal of the brute creation. That is what I said; and in 
the true sense of this subject, that position can be main- 
tained. 

You ask, " Does the institution of slavery deprive human 
beings of speech ?" I answer, yes! It does not always 
deprive them of the pmopr of speech, but it does indeed 
de[)rive them of the liberiij of speech,^ and that is the true 
sense in which I am discussing this subject; and in that 
sense it does reduce human beinsi-s to a level with the ani- 
mal of the brute creation. 

In the true sense of the institution of slavery, and in 
reference to t\\Q fact of it rcducivg human beings to a level 
with the animal of the brute creation, I will offer the fol- 
lowing : As the animal of the brute creation is an article of 



(1) Were brother Wii.ky alive now, what would he sny of Rurnside and hi.« order " No. 
3.S," and Hascall and his order " No. 9 " and of the banishment Oi Vallandighani? Would 
he not -^ay that those Generals and Uie administration wen; reducinc: free American citi- 
Eens to the level of the animal of the brute cieation, and heuce sinful institutions? 



246 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

merchandize, so is the slave. As the animal of the brute 
creation is taught to know the meaning of words expres- 
sive of the will of the owner, so is the slave. As the ani- 
mal of the brute creation is compelled by force to obey the 
will of the owner, so is the slave. As the animal of the 
brute creation is deprived of owning anything, so is the 
slave. As the animal of the brute creation may be deprived 
of nurturing and enjoying the association of its offspring, 
so may the slave. As the owner of the animal of the brute 
creation can sell the animal at pleasure, even so can the 
slave be sold. As the owner of the animal of the brute 
creation disregards the affections (for the animal of the 
brute creation, brother Smith, has both mind and affections) 
of the animal by separating it from its mate, and its off- 
spring, even so does the institution of slavery disregard the 
affections of the slave, by separating him from his com- 
panion and offspring, and thus reducing him to a level with 
the animal of the brute creation. 

In all these cases, and in many more, does the institution 
of slavery reduce, or bring down, human beings to a level 
with the animal of the brute creation. And I am still wil- 
ling to risk the whole controversy upon the truth of this 
one item. *' Sober truth" is enough for me. 

" None but God can own a man." You inform me that 
if I will take a tour to the South, I will certainly see that 
the above quotation is not true. Well, I am willing to ad- 
mit that, by the authority of the sinful institution of slavery, 
one man is permitted to own another, as an article of mer- 
chandise ; but none bid God can oion a man, m the true 
sense of ownership. No man can own his fellow-man, only 
by authority of the sinful institution of oppression, made 
by man, in direct opposition to the law of the divine law- 
giver. 

Next in order comes the item of separating families. On 
this item you say : *' The laws of Indiana divorce men and 
their wives, and take children from one or both of their 
parents, as thp cfase may be, for all time to come ; and the 
slave laws do it for no h)nger time." Now, brother Smith, 
these remarlcs of yours fail to reach tlvs point I made. My 
argument went to show, that husbands and wives, being 
separated by divorce, or parents and children, being separa- 
ted by being called into the service of their country, does 



I5EBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 247 

not separate families in the same sense that slavery sepa- 
rates them. This must be done, brother Smith, otherwise 
the argument fails to reach the case. But you claim that 
I have fallen into an error by saying that the institution of 
slavery ruOdesdy separates husband and wife. This is not 
an error ; it is strictly true. Take for example the follow- 
ing : Deacon A., quite a respectable man, by the authority 
of the peculiar institution, owns a number of slave families, 
men, women, and children ; he is kind to them, even better 
than the law requires ; but he is suddenly called by death 
away, and they are left to the tender mercies of the insti- 
tution : what now is done with them ? What will the pecu- 
liar institution do for them ? They -^vq forced to the auction 
block, where the institution, with all its tender mercies, 
ruthlessly separates husband and wnfe, parents and children, 
to realize all the horrors of perpetual bondage. This, dear 
brother, is what the institution of slavery does do ; and if 
such an institution is not sitiful, then it is no use to talk 
about anything being sinful. 

The next item is your reply to my argument on Luke iv, 
18, 19. But you so signally failed to remove, or to even 
weaken the force of my argument, that it is unitecessary to 
make any further defence of it now. 

But again : In regard to the Golden Rule you say : 
"What a pity Paul made so great a mistake in Philemon's 
case, in sending Onesimus back to serve him, instead of tell- 
ing Philemon that he couy not retain Onesimus as a slave, 
without violating the Lord's Golden Rule ; and he must let 
Onesimus go free ; and if he did not he would sin." I am 
glad that you brought up this case ; for I am prepared, by 
it, to show two facts : first, that Philemon and Onesimus 
were brothers according to the fiesh ; and second, after 
Onesimus was converted to Christianity, he was no longer 
bound to service. If this can be done, then one of two 
things must be true. He w?is not a servant in the sense of 
American slavery; or the Gospel, when it converts a man, 
destroys the relation of master and slave. If the truth or 
the above statements is questioned, I pledge myself to sus- 
tain them ; but fo-r the present, I will pass to noti<3e some 
other remarks made in regard to the Golden Rule. You 
say : " The slave can not do to his master what he wants 
the master to do to him, because the master is already free.** 



248 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

The Golden Rule says, *' All thing.s whatsoever ye would 
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." But 
you say this can not be dono! ** The slave can not do to 
his master what he wants the master to do to liim." Tiius 
you have shown, thjit tlie institution of slavery makes it 
im})ossihle for the Golden Rule to be obeyed. The Lord 
has ^iven this rule, and its moral obligations rest up<jn itvi'vy 
human beiuiij; but you have shown that it is morally, yea, 
utterly impossible for tlie slav-o, while he remains in slavery, 
to obey it. Now, brother Smith, you certainly can see, 
that, according to your own .-diowing, it is the .sinful institu- 
tion of slavery that places iialividuals in such a condition 
that they cati not obey (i )d. The slaveholder wonU obey 
the Golden Rule and h-oo his slaves, as he would that others 
should do to hjin ; and therefore the slave can not obey it, 
according to your owii showing. If an institution, that 
makes it impossible to obey the moral obligations plainly 
set forth in the word of ihe Lord, is not sinful, then it is in 
vain to try to show tltat anything is sinful. But if mas- 
ters would obey the v?tomZ obligations contained in tlie 
Goldon liule, and free their slaves, then the slave could also 
obey the nigral obligations of this rule. 

A^iain you say • ''Tbe l^oid has two sets of laws for his 
diseij)les; one to govern them in their conduct in his house 
and king<lom, and with and towards brethren in Christ, and 
one to govern them in th'Mr comluct towards them that are 
without, },in<l as being members (^' subjects of the kingrloms 
of this world." But you passeiifrom this item without de- 
fining yourself; and I tliink that you have [jlaced yourself 
in a dilemma, turn vvhioli way you will. But I wait to hear 
fiOm you again. 

Li your next item yon say : *' The Savior is a good Mas- 
ter;" but you fail to show his dave code^ or to show that he 
sold his slaves fur monry. 1 cm not see what you introduce 
this item for, uJiless it was to prove that Ameiican slaveiy 
is a righteous institution, [f this is your object, then you 
must show ivh^-re the L'lvd made merchandise of his <lisci- 
ples, and bought and sold them for money, If this is not 
your ol ject, then your pleadings on this point has no bear- 
ing on the sultjecl in dispute. 

In )eply to my aigunitut, based upon the passage, '' Ben- 
der theref.u-e to all their dues," you ask, "What dues, bro- 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 240 

ther Wiley?" Then you answer: "Why, dues under the 
civil government, its laws, institutions, and regulations." 
Again, you say : " Slaves, in our Constitution, are defined 
to he persons held to service hy the laws of a State. The 
service of the slave is, therefore, in our kingdom of tliis 
workl, due to the master." Thus it is seen, that your repl}^ 
is luJiolly based upon the assumption that the institution of 
slavery is a righteous institution. You are compelled fil*st 
to go to the law authorizing slavery; and then assume that 
it has the divine sanction upon it ; and then you asse7i that 
the apostle, when he said, "render to all their dues," 
meant the service of the -slave to his master. But as you 
promise more on this point, I will w\ait to see if you hav6 
anything better. 

Your last item in reply number two, is an atfemjyt to meet 
my Uth argument; but for some cause, either for the want 
ef time, or space, or ideas, you failed to reach the argu- 
ment. You related an anecdote about some good mission- 
aiy brother, and closed your argument, and left my argu- 
ment standing, with all its force against the institution of 
slavery. 

I will now proceed with my regular file of arguments. 

10. This, my tenth argument, is founded upon the fol- 
lowing words of the apostle: "Where there is neither 
Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision. Barbarian^ 
Scythian, bond nor free : but Christ is all in all."' This 
passage shows that the Gospel of Christ sets aside Judaism, 
Barbarism, or slavery, and makes all one in Christ ; and 
that "Christ is all in all." Thus it is shown that th^ bar- 
barous institution of slavery is sinful. 

11. This argument is drawn from the following passage: 
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name 
of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by 
him."2 

To do anything in the name of the Lord, is to do it b}^ the 
aiUhority of the Lord. And this passage says, " whatso- 
ever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord 
Jesus." No man, or set of men, can enact a slave code, 
and bring human beings into perpetual bondage, as the in- 
stitution of American slavery does, without committing sin, 
unless the Lord Jesus has authorized it ; and, as he has 

(1) Col.iii, IL U) Col.iii, n. 

17 



250 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

never authorized any such thing, therefore the institution 
of American shivery is a sinful institution. 

Now, brother Smith, you must meet these arguments 
with plain sober truth, or fail in your undertaking. 
Yours in christian love, 

Thos. Wiley. 
April dihy 18{)1. 



JER. SMITHES REPLY NUMBER THREE. 



My Dear Brother Wiley: — Your number three, dated 
April 9th, is before me. 

It seems that I must pay some more attention to the 
meaning of words and phrases, that we may, if possible, 
arrive at clear and distinct ideas. We must do that if we 
desire to reason correctly, and " come to the knowledge of 
the truth;" and if we do not, we will "never be able to 
come to the knowledge of the truth;" but as Jannes and 
Jambres withstood Moses, so we will also " resist the truth," 
and become of the sort who creep into houses, and lead 
captive silly women. ' And, without arriving at clear, and 
distinct, and correct definitions and ideas of the words and 
phrases used in the good word of the Lord, we will " strive 
about words to no profit,"" which we are commanded not to 
do ; and if we do, we sin. 

I said in my last, that ^^ civil government or civil society 
means the government of the State, or the secular govern- 
ment, whether it exists among a pagan people or christian 
people, and whether the people were civilized or barbarous;" 
and that " the terms civil government, civil society, are used, 
and will be used by me throughcut this discussion, in th'^ 
sense of human yovernmenis — kingdoms of this tvorldJ^ 
You, in your last, state this thus : " Civil society or civil 
government means all human governments; savage and bar- 
barous as well as civilized ;" and you cheerfully accept that. 
Now look and see how you have mis-stated what I said. I 
spoke of civilized and barbarous people, while you convert 

(1) 2 Tim. iii, 6-8. (2) 2 Tim. ii, U. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. ' 251 

it into savage, barbarous, and civilized govern7nents — a very 
different thing. But in the next step, you get still further 
off, and say : " It (slavery) belongs to civil society, oid^/ 
in your (my) qualified sense, which is, that civil society 
means savage and barbarous society"! ! and afterwards, get- 
ting still further off, you go on to say, " it will hereafter be 
clearly understood that slavery belongs to savage, barba- 
rous society^'!!! and then you assume that I must show 
that "savage barbarity" is not sinful, and that you are to 
show that it is sinful, instead of showing that slavery is ! !! 

Why do you take savage and barbarous, and leave out 
civilized, when you talk of my definition of society and 
government, when, according to what you "accept" as 
what I said, it included civilized *' as well as " savage and 
barbarousl Why did you not say, as you might properly 
have said, that *' it will hereafter be clearly understood that 
slavery belongs to civilized socieiy^^ ? Brother Wiley, this 
method of proceeding is not the proper one by which to 
come to the knowledge of the truth. 

" Sin is the transgression of the law ;" " all unrighteous- 
ness is sin." Righteousness is doing the things commanded 
of God. These are Scripture definitions ; the last, though 
not in the exact words of the Scripture, is scripturally ac- 
curate. 

In your last you say, " whatever an individual does that 
is not righteous, must be sinful." Here, in a nut-shell, is 
the difference between us. Let us 2:0 to work, ri^jht here, 
and ascertain which is in error ; and, having done that, we 
can see clearly our way further on. 

Righteousness is doing God's commands. What, then, 
must be unrigliteoitsness % Clearly not doing God's com- 
mands ; for un, placed before a word, is not, or the nega- 
tive of what is expressed by the word. Hence, the mi- 
righteoiisness that is sin, is the not doing of what God 
cormnands. Consequently it is not true, that "whatever an 
individual does that is not righteous, must he sinful." 

I desire you, brother Wiley, to examine this with that 
calm, candid scrutiny, that I know you have the disposition 
to exercise, and I am confident that you will see that it is as 
above stated. The above statement itself, clearly shows its 
truth. If, however, further elucidation of it should be 
necessary, 1 shall furnish it hereafter.. 



252 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERT. 

To call the cases of Abram's going from Haran, and the 
apostles' going by the way of the Gentiles, or into the cities 
of the Samaritans, special cases, does not aid you ; for they 
were laws of God to those persons. The case of the thief 
on the Cross was not a law, but a blessing bestowed. The 
Savior did not command him to do anything ; but because 
the thief believed on him, and turned and applied for aid, 
he pardoned him and promised hira paradise. So of the 
palsied man, though in addition to the blessing bestowed 
upon him, he had a command given to him, which he obeyed.* 
But to Abram and to the apostles, coramunds were given, 
which makes those cases entirely different from the thief's 
case. 

But I will now show that the same rule obtains in God's 
law to all mankind, that did in the laws cited as to Abram 
and the apostles. 

*' The wrath of God is revealed from heaven ai::ainst all 
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth 
in unrigliteousness ; because that v/hich may be known of 
God is manifest in them ; for God hath shoivn it unto thcm.^''^ 
The ivrath of God (which is the penalty of God's law) is 
revealed against not godliness and not righteousness of men, 
who hold the truth in unrighteousness ; that is, in disobedience 
of the truth, or law of God, made known of (or by) God, 
and manifested to them, and shown to them by God. This 
is shown to be so, if any more shov/ing is necessary, in the 
fifth chapter of Ephesians, where it is shown that the wrath 
of God comes upon the children of disobedience Disobe- 
dience is there used to mean the same thing that unright- 
eousjicss is used to mean in Romans. 

And upon examination you wilkfiud it to be true through- 
out the Scripture record, that the wrath of God came always 
upon disobedience or unrighteousness, both meaning the 
same thing. I will name some of the instances. Saul dis- 
obeyed and saved some of the spoils of Amalek. For this 
the wrath of God rejected him from being king, and cut off 
his house and posterity. The Jev/ish nation disobeyed the 
law of God given by JMoses. For that the wrath of God 
sold them into captivity to the Babylonians, and took away 
their place and nation. The same nation afterwards dis- 
ci) Matt, ix, l-Y : Mark ii, 3-12 ; Luke v, 18-25. (2) Eom. 1, 18-19. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 2h^ 

obeyed God in disobeying and rejecting the Lord. For 
this, together with the transgression of the hiw they com- 
mitted in murdering the Lord, the wrath of God visited the 
sorest vengeance and punishment upon them, which is still 
being inflicted, as they imprecated his blood on them and 
their children.^ 

You did not attempt in your last, my brother, to show 
any recorded case in the^ Bible, where God held any one to 
be a sinner, in any other case tlian for the violation of some- 
thing that God had directly said — where he ever accounted 
any one a sinner foi constructive sins, or such as were made 
sins by inference only from what God had said. Until you 
do so, it is entirely unnecessary to think about or examine 
what you say about gambling, lotteries, card-tables, &c. 
Winning money, or articles of value, is dishonesty — not 
providing things hore^t in the sight of all men, and is de- 
nounced as sinful in the christian Scripture, a half dozen 
times. The case of some one placing an obstruction where 
I was to walk, by which I would get a limb broken, is a 
violation of the express command to put away from us all 
malice, recorded three different times in the divine law.^ 
But enough. 

You may call slavery a "sinful institution," a "barbarous 
institution," &c., in every paragraph or page you write, but 
you do not thereby show it to be sinful ; nor will you, until 
you show it to be in violation of something that God has 
directly said as a command or direction to man ; and your 
effort to do so by inferences — two, three, or four, and some- 
times five or six inferences — from a command or direction 
of God, is labor lost; and it looks to me like it is useless 
for you to further do so, until you have produced at least 
one instanee where God has ever accounted any one a &in- 
aer by inference. 

This is the point to which you must come, brother Wiley. 
But I will still go on to show that the Scriptures quoted by 
you do not prove slavery sinful. Many of them are so 
wholly irrelevant to the proposition to be proved, that it 
looks to me unnecessary to notice them; but, as we are 
laboring for our mutual instruction, I must examine them 
as far as space will permit. 

• ) Matt, xxvii, 25. (2) Eph. iv, 30 ; Col. iii, S ; 1 Pet. ii, 1. 



254 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

To reduce human beings to a hivel with animals of the 
brute creation, is to reduce them to the same position in the 
order of creation and existence that is occupied and filled 
by brutes. They must have just such powers, faculties, 
and qualities as brutes liave. and no more. Human beings 
that are not brought down to that place in the scale of ex- 
istence, are not reduced to a level with them. Slavery does 
not so reduce human beings. 

You say it does not deprive them of the jjoiver of speech, 
but it does of the Uberti/ of speech. That is another error; 
for they are allowed all lawful speech, proper for persons in 
their state and condition in life. Unlawful speech, which 
is liceiiliousness of speech, they are depi'ived of. Christians 
are deprived of the same thing, by the law of the Ijord ; 
and does that reduce christians lo a level with animals of 
the brute creation ? Certainly not. Here is the law of the 
Lord doing that : " There are many unruly and vain talkers 
and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose 
months must he stopped; who subvert whole houses, teaching 
things which they ought not."* We have as many such 
talkers now as they had in Paul's time ; who subvert not 
only whole houses, but whole communities ; and they make 
great clamor about liberty of speech, when licentiousness 
of speech is what they mean by it. 

"None but God can own a man," you now admit to be 
untrue in this country. I have said tliat it will appear be- 
fore we get tlirough this discussion, that it is contradictory 
of divine Scripture. I think it is now time for this to begin 
to appear. 

"And the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and 
he delivere'd them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled 
them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies 
round about, so that they could not any longer stand before 
their enemies."- " And the anger of the Lord was hot 
against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chusan- 
rishathiam, king of Mesopotamia."" " And the Lord sold 
them into the hand of Jabin, king of Canaan, that reigned 
in Hazor."^ " And the anger of the Lord was hot against 
Israel, and he sold them into the hands of the Philistines, 
and into the hands of the children of Araraon."^ These 

(1) Tit. i, 10, 11. See, also, James i, 26 ; iii, 2-6. (4) Judg. iv, 2. 

(2) JikIm;. ii, U. (5) Judg. x, 7. 

(3) Judg. iii, 8. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 255 

children of Israel were the people of God, his chosen peo- 
ple and possession ; and we see that the Lord sold them 
these different times ; and when he sold them, others than 
God owned them. It is immaterial how long, or how short 
the time between the sales, and the delivery or redemption 
of Israel by God again. After sold and before redeemed, 
Israel was oioned by those to whom Israel had been sold. 
If it be said this was because of Israel's sin, the reply is, 
how do we know but that the Africans' being sold into 
slavery here, in the United States, is because they have 
sinned? We have no revelation on the subject. The prov- 
idence of God, exhibited in the fact that they are enslaved 
here, is all that we have. Whether it is because they have 
sinned, or to reclaim them from the ** barbaraism" in which 
they were and still are, in Africa, and christianize them, 
and finally make them the means and instrument of reno- 
vating and elevating their race in Africa, we are not in- 
formed by revelation ; and our reasoning and philosophical 
guesses at the purpose and object of God in their enslave- 
ment, are useless, if not wicked. The Spirit alone searches 
the deep things of God ; and if they are necessary and 
proper for us to know, God reveals them to us by his Spirit^ 
If they are not, his judgments and determinations in the 
premises, are unsearchable^ and his ways (Providences) are 
past finding out.^ 

I might as well say here, what is a reply to what you say 
tinder another head, that this is one of the ways that the 
Lord "sold his slaves," and "made merchandise of his peo- 
ple, and bought and sold them ;" for it was the Lord that 
made these sales, and redeemed or delivered them again. 

Separating families. As you have said so much about 
w^hat the institution of slavery does on this subject, and 
about the riithlessness of it, I will elucidate some further, 
^' I am come to set a man at variance against [separate him 
from] his father, and the daughter against her mother, and 
the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. * * He 
that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of 
me : and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is 
not worthy of ^ne. And he that taketh not his cross [of 
the severance of these family ties,] and foUoweth after me, 
[though these ties are thereby severed,] is not worthy of 

(1) 1 Cor. i), 10. (2) Kom« xi, 33- 



256 DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 

me."' "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, 
and mo-thcr, and Avife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, 
yea, and his own life also, lie can not he my disciple.'''^ Is 
this " ruthless " and " barbarous," brother Wiley ? Are 
those words — rutJiless and harharous — "sound words," 
*' wholesome words,'' to use in speaking of it? It is a part 
of the Lord's system of slavery. Is Christianity, therefore, 
sinful? Your deacon case, if it was true of the institution 
of slavery in our " kingdom of this world," is not as near 
ruthless as this in the Lord's kingdom is. But it is the 
laws for the levying of debts by the execution and sale of 
property, that makes your deacon's case, and not the insti- 
tution of slavery, nor the law creating it. By them, upon 
deacon A's death, Ms slaves descended fo Ms heirs. If he 
died in debt beyond the means of payment left by him, so 
as to retj^uire the sale of his slaves to pay his debts, and 
the separation of families was caused thereby, that was 
brother deacon A's sin, not for owning the slaves, but for 
transgressing that express law of the Lord, which comman- 
ded him to " owe no man anything, but to love one another ;"^ 
and it was not the sin of the institution. And if he did 
not die so in debt, and his heirs, in partitioning among 
themselves the slaves inherited by them from him, separated 
families, that was their sin, (if it was a sin) and not the in- 
stitution's. So this ruthless matter you are so alarmed about, 
brother Wiley, is not the institution's at all; and, if it was, 
ft is not any more ruthless, if as ruthless, as the system in 
the Lord's kingdom. 

Your third argument, to-wit, Luke iv, 18, 19, is fully an- 
swered until you cite me to the passage where the Savior 
or the apostles, in preaching deliverance to the captives, 
preached that the slaves should be emancipated, or that rt 
was sinful to hold them. I am waiting for you to cite the 
passage. 

The Golden Rule. The rule does not require or direct 
the master to free the slave; because the master being free, 
does not want the slave or aixy one else to free him. And, 
though the slave wants the master to free him, that does 
not make it the duty of the master to do it under the rule ; 
and the slave can not free the master, not because " the in- 
stitution of slavery makes it impossible for the Golden 

(1) Matt. X, 35-38. (2) Luke xir, 26. (3) Horn, xiii, 8. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 257 

Rule to be obeyed," but because the master being already 
free, can not be freed; and that being the case, the Golden 
Rule does not require the slave to free the master, and 
hence it is not disobeyed by the slave. So the "moral ob- 
ligation " of the rule (and that is nothing more than what 
the rule imposes by its language) does not require the mas- 
ter to free the slave, nor the slave to free the master ; and 
"the institution of slavery" does not "place" any one, 
either master or slave, or any one else,, "in such a condi- 
tion that they can not obey God," 

I will hear and consider what you have to say about 
Onesimus. 

The time has not yet come, in this friendly investigation, 
to " rightly divide the word of truth,"' in relation to our 
duties and obligations as "members of the body of Christ," 
and with and towards our fellow members, and with and 
towards " those that are Avithout." We will reach it in due 
time, if it should, by that time, be necessary to go into the 
investigation of that matter. The passages quoted by you 
from James, under your fifth argument, to be understood in 
the sense of inspiration, must be considered under that 
division. 

Under your eighth argument, in reply to what I said in 
my last, you say I am "compelled first to go to the law au- 
thorizing slavery, and then assume that it has the divine 
sanction upon it." I do not assume it, brother Wiley, but 
the law of the Lord says it. For, in our " kingdom of this 
world," as I showed in my last, the services of the slaves 
are "due'^ the masters; and the law of the Lord says thai} 
"there i« no power [in civil governments] but of God; the 
powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, 
resisteth the power [that ordains that the services of the 
slaves are " due " the masters, as well as other matters es- 
tablished by the civil governments], resisteth the ordinance 
of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves 
damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but 
to the evil. For he [this power of the civil government] 
is the mi^iister of God to thee [christian] for good. * ^ 
* ^ Wherefore ye [christians] must needs be subject, not 
only for [or on account of] wrath [punishment inflicted by 
this civil government] but also for conscience sake. For, 

(1> 2 Tim. ii, 15. 



258 DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 

for this cause [that they may keep up the regulations of 
their civil government] pay ye [christians] tribute also : for 
they are God\'i ministers, attending continually upon this 
very thing. [You christians must] render therefore to all 
their dues," under the laws and regulations of these civil 
governments or kingdoms- of this world. ^ " Submit your- 
selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake,^^ even 
to the ordinance of man that establishes the institution of 
slavery ; for so is the will of God."^ 

Your ninth argument or proof, was fully met by showing 
that masters did not "hire" their slaves, and, of course, 
did not keep back their Idre hy fraud. 

Your tenth argument or proof text, does not show " that 
the Gospel of Christ sets aside * ^^ slavery," and prove 
that the "institution of slavery is sinful." It does not 
have any relation whatever to slavery. 

11. "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the 
name of the Lord;" therefore, when you "submit your- 
selves" to the "ordinance of man," establishing slavery, 
you do it in the name, or by the express authority of the Lord, 
as above shown; but when you "resist," "in word or deed,'' 
you do not do it in the name of the Lord, or by his author- 
ity, but directly against it; and they that resist, &c. -. 

Affectionately yours, 

Jer. Smith. 

April nth, 1861. 

This last letter was never answered by brother Wiley, 
and the discussion ended here. Whether it was because he 
began to doubt the correctness of his abolition opinions, 
and that he might examine more fully and carefully the 
good word of the Lord upon the subject, before he proceeded 
further with the discussion, I do not know ; but I am in- 
clined to believe that that was the reason. He was a very 
honest, candid man with himself, as well as with all others. 
And when he had reason to fear that he was wrong in any- 
thing, he went to work, faithfully and honestly, to ascertain 
the truth of the matter ; and if he found himself in error, 
to correct it. That trait in his character was a principal rea- 
son why I entered into the friendly investigation with him. 

He lived more than a year after the close of the forego- 

(1> Rom, xviu, l-5r. (2) 1 Pet. ii, 13 and 15. See, also. Matt, xxii, 21. 



DEBATE WITH ELDER WILEY. 250 

ing correspondence, and died in August, I believe, of 1862. 
He Avas an excellent man, and I have no doubt has gone to 
be with the Lord. He went to prepare a place for his dis- 
ciples, that where he is, there they may be also.^ I have 
no doubt but brother Wiley has gone there. ! that I 
may so conduct myself as to meet him in those happy man- 
sions, is my prayer. 

As all who undertook to sustain the proposition, Slavery 
is sinful, desisted before the discussion ^vas concluded — in 
brother Boggs' case before it was begun — I shall now pro- 
ceed to close the discussion, ex parte. I would much prefer 
having an able, candid opponent, that all that can be urged 
in favor of the proposition might be considered. Proceed- 
ing alone, I may overlook some things that many honest 
people think go to sustain the truth of the proposition. 

I shall, as I proceed, so far as it falls in my way, show 
the sinfulness of abolitionism. 

June 20th, 1863. 

(1) John xiv, 2, 3. 



CONCLUSION 



OF THE 



DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY 



For sin is the transgression of the law.^ 
For where no law is, there is no transgre:<sion.* 
Sin is not imputed w^iere there is no law.^ 
For by the law is the knowledge of sin.^ 
I had not knuwn sin but by the law: For I had not 
knov/n lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not 
covet.^ 

These are all divine oracles. They are plain and easy to 
be understood. They clearl^^ teach that sin is the trans- 
gression of the law; that where there is no law, there is not, 
and, of course, can not be transgression of law, which con- 
stitutes sin ; and hence, that sin is not imputed when there 
is no law.. They also clearly teach that we acquire the 
knowledge of sin by the law; that we know what is sin 
only by the law ; because we would not have known inordi- 
nate desire, or lust, if the law had not said, Thou shalt not 
covet, or desire inordinately. See New Translation. 

Yet brother Bijtler labored through many of the prece- 
ding pages, as the reader will see, to bring me and our 
readers to the knowledge that slavery is sin, by argument, 
reason,ings, philosophical deductions, " the inexorable logic 
of events, guided and controlled by the hand of the Omnip- 
otent One,"^ notwithstanding these divine oracles, emanating 

(1) 1 John iii. 4. (3) Rom. v, 13. (5) Rom. vii, T. 

(2; Rom. iv, 15. (4) Rom. iii, 20. (6) Ante, p. 159. 



262 CONCLUSION OF THE 

from the Omnipotent One, show that he does not bring us to 
the knowledge of sin by logic, exorable or inexorable, nor 
by events, but by his law. And brother Wiley also thought 
that I "committed a fatal errror " in insisting upon what 
these divine oracles assert.^ 

As these men who had been a long time in the refor- 
mation, still had ^uch ideas and notions when they wrote 
what precedes, and could not be convinced of the error they 
were in, by what I have already said on the subject, hun- 
dreds and thousands of others, who are honest and good 
people, who have, in word and theory, come out of Babylon 
and eschewed everything Babylonish, of course, still adhere 
to this course of ascertaining sin and righteousness; which 
method of determining and ascertaining what is sinful and 
what is righteous, was, and is, the very cause and sustenance 
of the great apostacy, and which created, built up, and sus- 
tained the Man of Sin and the Mother of Harlots, with all 
her harlotrous brood; hence, I deem it proper to dwell some 
longer upon this subject, before I proceed to the further 
direct discussion of the proposition, Slavery is sinful. Be- 
cause, if we of this reformation follow this practice of the 
old Harlot, we will only add another one to her already 
numerous brood. 

By the law is the knowledge of sin. I had not known 
sin but by the law. Knowledg-e, then, is an important 
tiling to be understood ; hence, I must briefly examine what 
it is, and how and whence we acquire it. 

Knowledge is defined by lexicographers to be certain per- 
ception ; learning, illumination of the mind. 

Knowledge^ as possessed by the various, perhaps myriads, 
of orders of intelligences, ascending from man up to God, 
we can have no conception of; much more, of that pos- 
sessed by God himself. Our intellects are wholly incapable 
of having perception, much more certain perception of the 
knowledge of which superior intellects are possessed, and 
capable of being possessed. Take an instance, which will 
give us the idea. God has revealed to us the fact that we 
are to have a future existence after death. We are told 
that our bodies shall be raised spiritual bodies. The Lord 
was raised*, and was exhibited openly after his resurrection, 
during forty days. We know these to be truths because 

(1) Ante, p. 244. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 263 

tliey come from God. Yet ^ve can not have " certain per- 
ception" about our future bodies, and our existence in the 
future state. The beloved disciple John could not ; for to 
him, it did " not yet appear ^Yhat we shall be : but we know 
that, when he shall appear, we shall be like hira ; for we 
shall see him as he is."^ John saw the Lord after his res- 
urrection, and when he ascended, but he could not say how 
he would appear when he came again. All that he could * 
comprehend and communicate by revelation to us, was, that 
we shall be like him Avhen he does come. Hence, knowledge 
beyond our sphere, and the things of our sphere, we can 
not have. While in this state of existence, things beyond 
our sphere rest with us, in faith and Jiope. 

Knowledge, then, with us, relates to man, to his origin, 
his habitation, his mission, his history, and his destiny. Of 
these things we can acquire knowledge ; and whatever we 
know of, or relating to these things, WE derive from God. 

God communicates knowledge to us, through his word, by 
his Spirit. '' In the beginning [of creation] was the word; 
and the word was with God ; and the word was God. This 
was in the beginning with God. All things were made by 
it ; and without it, not a single creature was made. In it 
was life, and the life was the light [illumination] of men."^ 
" x\nd the word became incarnate, and sojourned among us 
* ^ ^^ full of favor and tridh.''^ He is the true light 
that enlightens or illuminates the human family.^ He is 
the light or luminary of the world of mankind.'' He w^alked 
with Adam in the garden of Eden ; he talked with Abra- 
ham ; he dwelt with the . children of Israel f his delights 
were with the sons of men ;^ his testimony is the spirit of 
pi^phecy f in him are laid up all the treasures of wisdom 
and knowledge f and he is both the power of God, and the 
wisdom of God,"^ " who of God is made unto us wisdom, 
and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."^^ 
The knowledge that ho communicates to the human family, 
is " the knowledge of the Lord," which is finally to cover 
the earth as the waters do the sea.^" 

Much of the knowledge communicated to the human 
family God revealed through the prophets and apostles, 



(1) 


1 John iii, 2. 


(5) 


John viii, 12. 


(9) Col. ii, 3, neto translation. 


(2) 


John i, 1-4, iV. 2\ 


^6) 


Num. XXXV, 34. 


(10) 1 Cor. i, 24. 


(3) 


John i, 14, JV. T. 


(7) 


Prov. viii, 31. 


(11) 1 Cor. i, 30. 


(4) 


John i, 9. 


(8) 


Kev. xix, 10. 


(12) Hab.ii,14;Is. xi, 9. 



264 CONCLUSION OF THE 

"by his Spirit; for the Spirit searclietli all things, yea, the 
deep things of God. For Avhat man knoweth the things of 
a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the 
things of God knoweth no man^ but the spirit of God."^ 
Hence, they received "the Spirit which is of God; that 
they might know the tJnngs [proper or necessary for us to 
know] that were freely given to them of God,''^ to commu- 
nicate to us. "Which things also" they spoke, " not in 
words taught by human Avisdom, [philosophy or reasoning] 
but in words taught by the S{jirit, explaining spiritual 
things in spiritual tvonh^^'-' or words taught by tlie Spirit. 
See what pains were taken to express the things that God 
by his Spirit revealed to us, by words selected by the Spirit, 
that we might fully understand them. And we are com- 
manded t3 "let no one deceive himself. If any one among 
you thinks to be wise in' this age, [the christian age] let him 
become a fool [throw away all his human wisdom, and phi- 
losophy and reasoning in matters pertaining to God, and his 
government and control of us as a part of his creation-,] 
that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this woild is fool- 
ishness with God; for it is written, 'he entangles the wise 
in their own craftiness.' And again, ' the Lord knows the 
reasonings of the v^isc, that they are vain.' "'' JMr. Wesley, 
on the above clause, he e7itangles the wise in their own crafti- 
ness^ says: "Not only while they think they are acting 
wisely, but by their very wisdom, v/hich itself is their snare 
and the occasion of their destruction." Hence, we should 
cast down or destroy "reasoning, and every high thing 
which exalteth itself against the knowledge of God."^ 
" Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of 
private impulse : for never, at any time, was prophecy 
bi ought by the will of man; but the holy men of God spoke, 
being moved by the holy Spirit.'"'' 

The human family knows absolutel}^ nothing of its origin, 
whence or how it came; of its habitation — this globe, 
whence and how it came, and what is its destiny ; of its 
mission — what it was made for, and what it has to do; of 
its history — from its origin ; and of its destiny — what is to 
become of it; except what God, through the Lord, by his 
Spirit, has taught it. 

(1) 1 Cor. ii, 10, 11. (3; 1 Oor. ii, 13, Jff. T. and Henley. (5) 2 Cor x, 5, Wesley. 

(2) 1 Cor. ii, 12. (4) 1 Cor. iii, 18-20, N. T. and Wedey. (6) 2.Pet. i, 20, 12, ^V. T. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 265 

Who, without reveliition, can tell the origin of our race ? 
Look at the vague and crude notions of the ancients before 
the christian era, for an answer. 

Who, without revehition, knows anything of this globe ; 
of its origin, how long it has existed, what it was made for, 
and what is to become of it? Geologists tell us something 
of the changes it has undergone ; but revelation alone tells 
us that in tlie beginning of creation, God created it, without 
telling us hoAV long ago the beginning of creation was, for 
that it was, and is not material or necessary for us to know; 
that it was without form and void, and darkness was upon 
the face of the deep, but how long it was in that condition, 
is not material for us to know, and is not revealed. Then 
when revelation begins to inform us of the geological 
changes effected upon it to prepare it for the abode of man, 
its future lord, and for whom it was made, it becomes more 
definite and particular. By the Avord of God, we also learn 
that the heavens were of old, and the earth standing in the 
water and out of the water; whereby the world that then 
was, being overflowed with water, perished by a flood ; but 
the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same 
word (of God) are kept in store, reserved for fire against 
the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men : wherein 
the heavens shall pass away, being on fire shall be dissolved, 
and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth 
also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up. 
Nevertheless, after this jjjeneral conflao:ration of the earth, 
and the woi'ks that are therein of sin and crime, which have 
been accumulating for now nearly six thousand years, we 
know by the same word of God that there will be new hea- 
vens and a new earth, (perhaps formed of the matter of the 
present one purified by fire) wherein will dwell righteous- 
ness, sin contamining it no more.^ 

Without revelation, who can tell what the mission of the 
human family is, what it was made for, and what it has to 
do ? Let the history of the heathen and pagan worlds 
answer. The best and ablest of the whole heathen world, 
Socrates, feeling after the knowledge of the Lord, if haply 
he might find him,-^ during a long and useful life, died 
directing a sacrifice to be made to a false deity.^ The 



(1) 2 Pet. iii, 5-7 and 10-13. (2) Acts xvii, 2T. (3) Rol. Anc. Hist. B. ix, ch. 4, $ 1. 

18 



266 CONCLUSION OF THE 

world by wisdom knew not God,^ and never could thus know 
him. No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and thej 
to whom the Son will reveal him.^ We can know God only 
by revelation, and, of course, we can not know what our 
mission and duty is, until we know our Maker. And this 
knowledge of God that we acquire by revelation of him to 
us by the Lord, is a rational knowledge of him and of his 
relation to us, and not a monkish moody knowledge, such 
as has been taught as being the proper one, for fifteen cen- 
turies. The knowledge of God was communicated by the 
Lord to Adam and to Noah, the progenitors of the aate- 
diluvian and post-diluvian worlds of mankind, and by each 
of them communicated to their posterity. But as the hu- 
man family apostatized from God, it lost the knowledge of 
God, and inspiration accurately describes the effects and 
consequences of the apostacy, which effects and conse- 
quences were and are the same then as now, and now as 
then. " Because that when they knew God, they glorified 
him not as God, neither were thankful ; but became vain in 
their imaginations, [reasonings, Wesley and N. Trans.] and 
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to 
be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the 
incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible 
man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping 
things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness 
through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own 
bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God 
into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more [or 
rather] than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections : for 
even their women did change the natural use into tliat which 
is contrary to nature : and likewise also the men, leaving 
the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one to- 
ward another ; men with men working that which is un- 
seemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their 
error which was meet. And even as they did not like to 
retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a 
reprobate mind, [a mind void of judgment, marginal read- 
ing] to do those things which are not convenient ; being 
filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, 
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, 

(1) 1 Cor i, 21. (2) Matt, xi, 2T ; Luke x, 22. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 267 

deceit, malignity ; whisperers, back-biters, baters of God, 
despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobe- 
dient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, 
without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful."' This 
is man when left to himself, to rely upon his own knowledge, 
wisdom, and virtue. 

The history of the human race for the first three thou- 
sand years would now be wholly lost, w^ere it not for revel- 
ation. God, by his providence, caused Moses to be raised 
up at the court of Pharaoh, and '* learned in all the wisdom 
of the Egyptians,'"^ then perhaps the most learned nation 
in the world. Some two thousand five hundred years after 
the creation of the human race, God caused Moses to bring 
Israel out of Egy})t, sustained Israel by a constant miracle 
in the wilderness for forty years, during which time, Moses, 
by inspiration of God, who was sustaining him and the 
whole camp of Israel every day by a miracle, wrote a his- 
tory of the race of man from its origin to Moses' death. 
The inspired apostles, and the Lord himself, frequently re- 
ferred to this history and the facts therein recorded as au- 
thentic; and no rational man, who examines the proofs, can 
doubt their inspiration. And as the Spirit, through them, 
endorsed the record Moses made of the origin, and of the 
first two thousand five hundred and fifty years of the his- 
tory of the race, it is the testimony of God himslef, that 
the record of Moses is true. 

Not as knowledge communicated of God, but as my 
opinion after pretty extensive examination, reasoning from 
facts and truths communicated of God and by profane his- 
tory, I state as my conclusion, that letters were not invented 
by man, but are a revelation of God. That the first writ- 
ten language " was the writing of God,"^ '' written with 
the finger of God,"'' by the Lord,"^ upon the first two tables 
of stone, which Moses broke when he came down from the 
Mount. That the second written language was the second 
set of tables written by Moses in tlie Mount, during the 
second forty days that ho was there,^ under the tuition, in- 
struction, and direction of the Lord, who taught him the 
letters and their use, and how to write. In eighty days 
tuition, Moses, then eighty years old, learned the alphabet, 

U) Rom. i, 21-31. (3) Ex. xxxii, 16. f5) Luke, xi, 20. 

(2) Acts vii, 22. (4) Ex. xxxi, 18. (6) Ex. xxxiv, 28; see marginal reading. 



268 CONCLUSION OF THE 

its use, and how to write alphabetical writing. In his 
youth, he had been brought up in all the learning of the 
Egyptians, which included hieroglyphical writing, which 
was the only writing used by the Egyptians long after 
Moses' day. Among the Greeks, Cadmus was called the 
inventors of letters. But he took them to Greece from 
Phoenicia, (Philistia) or Syria, two years before Mcses' 
death. And as the original Hebrew alphabet consisted of 
nineteen letters, all of which are in the Decalogue, written 
by the finger of God; and as Cadmus took sixteen letters 
to Greece, and the characters were the same as the Hebraic 
characters : and Cecrops, the founder of Athens, the seat 
of learning among the Greeks, went from Egypt and founded 
Athens the year before Cadmus went from Phoenicia (Phil- 
istia) and founded Thebes, called by him Cadmea, if letters 
had existed in Egypt, Cecrops would have taken them to 
Greece the vear before Cadmus did, and would have been 
called by the Greeks the inventor of letters, and not Cad- 
mus. But he knew only the Egyptian hieroglyphical method 
of writing ; and as Cadmus' aljihabetical method superseded 
it in Greece, and as alphabetical writing was then first 
known i:n Greece, the Greeks called Cadmus the inventor of 
letters; ar.d, inasmuch as it w\as then called an invention, it 
was not' known before. The presumption in my mind is, 
that Cadmus, who was a Philistine or Canaanite by birth, 
visited the Hebrew camp, stayed with Moses till lie learned 
the then newly revealed alpliabet and alphabetical method 
of writing, and saw enough of the wonderful works of God 
exhibited in the camp of Israel to convince him that his 
people — the Canaanites — were doomed to destruction ; so 
two years before Joshua crossed tlie Jordan, and after Balak 
and Balaam had tried in vain to drive away Israel by exor- 
cism, he fled the country with his people, went to Greece, 
took the Hebrew letters and learning with him, and founded 
the city of Thebes, and got the name among the Greeks of 
being the inventor of letters, when they were actually a 
revelation from God to Moses. ^ 

But the destiny of the race of man: Who would know it 
without revelation ? Socrates and Plato, the wisest men of 
the heathen world, taught the immortality of the soul ; and 
Cicero almost argued himself into the belief of it ; but none 

(1) 1 Roll. Amc. Hist. B. i, part 2; B. v, art. d. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 269 

of tliera ever d'reamed of the redemption of the body from 
the grave. Life and immortality were brought to light 
through the Gospel, and through that alone. ^ Christ was 
the first fruits of them that slept,^ and thus brought life and 
immortiility to light, and showed light to the people and to 
the Gentiles.^ 

I have passed very briefly over these matters to show 
that all our knowledge is derived from God; and that those 
who want to acquire knowledge, should study the word of 
God. Daniel, though inspired, understood by the books of 
the word of the Lord, that he would accomplish seventy 
years in the desolations of Jerusalem.'' If he went to the 
inspired record to acquire knowledge, hov/ much more 
should uninspired men. The knowledge and wisdom with 
which his mind was thus stored by the study of the inspired 
books, made him chief minister both in Nebuchadnezzar's 
and in Darius' governments, notwithstanding both of them 
were heathens. And even the prophets inquired and 
searched diligently, searching what the Spirit of Christ that 
was in them, did signify."' So should we inquire and search 
diligently what God has communicated to us by his Spirit. 
If the inspired prophets searched and inquired to ascertain 
what the oracles of God uttered by them taught, how much 
more should we appeal to them to acquire the knowledge 
of God. 

In thus studying and diligently acquiring the knowledge 
of God in relation to the mission of man — of what man 
has to do — we must look to tlie righteousness of God. This 
X'ighteoxjsness of God is not the good acts of God, or the 
beneficent things that God does; but it is the things that 
he has prescribed for us to do. The righteousness'of God, 
BOW in force for all the human family, is revealed in the 
Gospel.'' When we do that — obey the righteousness re- 
vealed in the Gospel — we are righteous even as Christ is 
righteous.'^ When we do not do that, either from ignorance 
or wilfulness, and set up and act upon our own notions of 
right and wrong, derived from our reason, from argument, 
from our " moral sensibilities," our hearts, our consciences, 
or from any other source than from the righteousness of 



(1) 2 Tim. i, 10. (4) Dan. ix, 2. (7) 1 John iii, T. 

( ) 1 Cor. XV, 20-23. (.5) 1 Pet. i, 10, 11. 

(.3) Acts xxvi, 23. l6) Rom. i, 16, 17. 



270 CONCLUSION OP THE 

God revealed in the Gospel to us, we go about to establish 
our own righteousness, and do not submit ourselves to the 
righteousness of God ;' in which case, though our zeal for 
God may be ever so fervent, yet it is not according to 
KNOWLEDGE : and not being according to knowledge, it is 
fanatical, and tlie more zealous we are, the more fanatical 
we are. 

In the revelations of God, relating to man's origin and 
his destiny, there are things difficult to comprehend and 
understand; but in what he commands or forbids us to do, 
there is no difficulty in understanding it, if we honestly and 
in good faith endeavor to do so. Whenever we do not do 
so, but set our reasoning powers to work to see, not only 
whether God's law says so, but whether it is consistent with 
other things God has said, that is, in the particular com- 
mand, whether God means what he sajs, or does he not say 
one thing and mean another, because, in our judgment, 
what he says here is inconsistent with what he said some- 
where else ; or, wliether the command under consideration 
is right and proper; or, whether we can not, by argument, 
and a series of syllogisms from other portions of the word 
of God, arrive at conclusions contradictory of the particu- 
lar command of God that we are examining; or, whether 
our intuitions " above and before all loiiical reasoninirs,"^ 
assert something contradictory of the commands of God 
under consideration ; or, in any other way we get to work 
to shield ourselves from performing the particular command 
of God under consideration, we, in so doing, are apostatiz- 
ing FROM God. Whenever v;e undertake, by argument or 
inference, to ascertain what our acts should be, either of 
commission or omission — what we should do, or what wo 
should not do — we are exalting our reasoning powers and 
our judgments " against the knowledge of God," instead of 
doing what the knowledge of God instructs us to do; for it 
says: "For though we walk in the llesh, we do not war 
after the flesh ; (for the weapons of our warfare are not 
carnal, but mighty through God to the throAving dttwn of 
strongholds;) destroying reasonings and every high thing 

(1) T?otn. X, 2, 3. For they being ignorant of the righteoumess of God— Of the 
WHithod God has estahlished tor the jiu-tification of the sinner, aiid seeking to establish 
their own righteousness— 'Vhflr own nifthod of uoceptance wiili (lod, /uive not submit- 
ted to the rig/iteou/iueas o/ 6''i>d— The way of justiiicatiou which he hath fixed.— Wcslet/'i 
Nots on the Pansage. 

(2) Ante, p. 99. ' 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 271 

which exalteth itself against the hnoivledge of God; and 
bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of 
Christ."^ Mr. Wesley says in his note on this passage, 
that by bringing every thought into captivity to the obe- 
dience to Christ, " reasonings are destroyed." This is true. 
If we yield our thoughts in obedience to Christ's commands, 
without cavil as to their propriety or impropriety, "their 
moral character," or anything else, we cast down or destroy 
reasoning on that branch of the inquiry, and apply our 
reason to the only proper use we can make of it in an in- 
quiry of that kind, which is, Did Christ say so by himself, 
or his sent apostles, during, or after his incarnation? or, did 
he, as the Word of God, say so before his incarnation, and, 
if so, is that saying still in force, or was it taken out of the 
way and nailed to his Cross ? TJiis is the sole and only 
proper use that ive can make of our reasoning powers as to 
the commands of God relating to our acts either of commis- 
sion or of omission. And whenever we do otherwise, and 
go to reasoning about his commands, and govern our action 
by the results and conclusions of our reasonings, it leads to, 
and if continued in, results in apostacy from God. This 
has been universally so, continually, from the day that 
Adam was placed in Eden, down to the present time, inclu- 
ding all present modern discussions, and, of course, inclu- 
ding this. I will cite a few of the many authenticated in- 
stances of the truth of this assertion. 

1. The Adversary of our race approached Eve in the 
garden of Eden, and commenced reasoning and arguing 
with her ; and she listened to his argument. " God doth 
know," said he, having assumed the form of, or rather, en- 
tered into, the serpent, *' that in the day ye eat thereof, 
then your eyes shall be opened ; and ye shall be as Gods, 
knowing good and evil."^ All this was true. It was the 
tree of knowledge of good and evil. Partaking of it, 
would give Adam and Eve that knowledge ; and they did 
not then possess it. Superior intelligences who had '* kept 
not their first estate,"^ had that knowledge ; and Adam and 
Eve, by acquiring it, would become as they, knowing good 
and evil. They could not acquire that knowledge any other 
way; for the only law given to them was the one allowing 
them everything else upon the earth, and thus within their 

(1) 2 Cor. X, 3-5, Wesley's Tram. (2) Gen. iji, 6. (3) Jude 6. 



272 CONCLUSION OF THE 

reach, and proliibiting them the fruit of that tree. There 
coukl be no transgression of law by them, without viohiting 
that prohibition ; and notwithstanding they had knowledge 
of good, they could iiave no knowledge of evil, without sin. 
The knowledge of evil was beyond their intellectual capac- 
ity, in their state of innocence. They could not know good 
and evil by contrast. Hence, all the serpent said to them 
was true, except the one thing, '* Ye shall not die." Hav- 
ing told that lie, he commenced the argument to prove it; 
every word of which argument was true. The command 
was plain; the sanction or penalty for disobeying it was not 
so plain; "for in the day thou eatest thereof, dying thou 
shalt die."^ Eve could have no trouble in understanding the 
command : " Thou shalt not eat of it." But she listened to, 
and heeded the argument. She saw that the tree was good 
for food, was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired 
to make one wise; she took and eat — transgressed the direct 
plain command of God, being 'drawn off by an aigument 
about the penalty — and acquired the knowledge of evil, to 
the great woe and misfortune of herself, and all her pos- 
terity; became wise enough to know evil, and to know good 
and evil, in or by contrast. 

This fact in the history of our race in its outset, proves 
that we should not get wise above what is written ; and 
that we should not go to reasoning or arguing about the 
plain commands of God, or their effects and consequences. 
All the commands of God are plain. *' No man ought to 
be wiser than the laws," is a maxim of the common law, 
which is put down by Coke in Latin thus : Neminem ap- 
portel esse sapieiitiorem legihus. Co. Lit. 97. The common 
law adopted the same wise principle that governs in the 
divine law. 

2. God said to Abraham, " Take now thy son, thine only 
son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of 



(1) Gen. ii, IT, The Hebrew rending; see the marginal note. As explained V>y the 
knowlfcilge of God as now possessed by our race, one day la a;j a thousand years with the 
Lord, 2 Pet. iii, 8, and as verified by the fact of the duration of human life from the crea- 
tion of man to the present lime, we can understand the penalty better than Adam could, 
but not tlie connnaud. In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt commence dying, 
become mortal, and thou shalt die within a thousand years thereafter, and nouQ of thy 
race shall live a thousand years. So now, we can understand the commands of the Gos- 
pel better than we can comprehend the sanctions or penalties denounced in it. Hence, we 
•re in a condition similar to th it of Adam as to the law and the penalty. In Eve's case, 
the devil's argument related to the penalty; this should cautitm iw against those who up- 
proutih us in the same way, attacking the sanctions of the Gospel. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 273 

Moriah ; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of 
the mountains, Avhich I will tell thee of."' 

Ilaci Abraham been an abolitionist, or had he acted upon 
the principle that abolitionists act upon in trying to prove 
slavery sinful by argument, he would have reasoned about 
thus : God has promised me that my seed c<>ming out of 
my own bowels, shall be as numerous as the stars in heaven; 
that in Isaac shall my seed be called; and by his direction, 
I have sent Ishmael away that Isaac may be my sole heir, 
and the father of my posterity. " The decrees and com- 
mands of God must of necessity be consistent and in har- 
mony with each other. I can not suppose that God would 
command the sacrifice of Isaac, if obedience to such com- 
mand w->uld conflict with his before expressed purpose and 
decree."^ If I sacrifice Isaac, the promise of God will fail ; 
and I, having sent away Ishmael and sacrificed Isaac, will 
be left without an heir, and without posterity. Besides, my 
" moral sensibilities " will not permit me to slay my own 
and only son ; '^ such a thing is too revolting to my feel- 
ings,"^ and I can not do it. 

But Abraham, not being an abolitionist, acted differently. 
Without any argument or equivocation about it; and with- 
out pretending to undertake to comprehend and understand 
how all these promises, decrees and commands of God 
could be reconciled and made consistent with each other, 
and all made to stand and be fulfilled; and though his 
paternal feelings were strongly Avrought upon, without 
doubt, yet his " moral sensibilities " were not shocked, nor 
was it " too revolting to his moral feelings," because God 
had commanded Jtim to do it; hence, he " rcse up early in 
the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his 
young men with him, and Isaac, his son, and clave the wood 
for the burnt-offering, and rose up, and went unto the place 
of which God had told him, -'' * ^^ built an altar there, and 
laid the wood in order; and bound Isaac his son, and laid 
him on the altar upon the wood." What a trying moment 
to the old patriarch, " the friend of God" ! " And Abraham 
stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." 
It was enough. The angel of the Lord called to him out 
of heaven, and said, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, 

(1) Gen. xxii, 2. (3) What brother Goodwin says, ante, p. 8t. 

(2) What 0. B. says, ante, p. 150. 



274 CONCLUSION OF THE 

neither do thou anything unto him: for now I k7ioiv that 
thou fearest God, seeing that thou hast not withheld thy 
son, thine only son, from me."^ 

Abraham " staggered not at the promise of God through 
unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and 
being ful]y persuaded, that what he had promised, he was 
able also to perform. And, therefore, it was imputed to 
him for righteousness. Now, it was not written for his sake 
alone, that it was imputed to him ; but for us also, to whom 
it shall be imputed, but if we believe on [or confide in] him 
that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."^ By faith, 
or confidence in God, and in unequivocal obedience to his 
command, Abraham thus " offered up Isaac : and he that 
had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 
of whom it was said. That in Isaac shall thy seed be called : 
accounting that God w^as able to raise him up, even from 
the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."^ 
For thus unequivocally and without question, obeying God, 
" he was called the friend of God,"^ and became the father 
of the faithful.^ 

3. God, by the mouth of the prophet Samuel, commanded 
Saul to *'go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that 
they have, and spare them not ; but slay both man and 
woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."* 

Saul went to work upon abolition principles, and reasoned 
and argued with himself, that to leave Agag, the king of 
Amalek, temporarily alive till he could show him in triumph 
to Israel, would not be a material variation from the com- 
mand of God to utterly destroy Amalek ; for he destroyed 
all the Amalekites except Agag. And to save alive the 
best of the sheep, and the oxen, and the fatlings, and the 
lambs, and all that was good,^ would furnish abundant sac- 
rifices for the altar of God, and he could thus abundantly 
sacrifice to, and honor God. But his action from this fine 
philosophical course of reasoning, was ^^ rebellion, which is 
as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and 
idolatry."^ And because he followed his reasonings and 
conclusion upon the subject, instead of obeying the plain 

(1) Gen. xxii, 2. (4) James ii, 23. (7) 1 Sam. xv, 9. 

(2) Kom. iv, 20-24. (5) Rom. iv, 11. (8) ISam.xv, 23. 

(3) Heb. xi, 17-19. (6) 1 Sam. xv, 3. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 275 

command of God, he vfas rejected from being king of Israel, 
and his liouse and posterity cut off. 

4. David was anointed king of Israel in place of Saul, 
after Saul's rejection. For that reason Saul sought his life, 
notwithstanding David had been faithful and true, and was 
blameless. Saul pursued David with armies to take his 
life, guiltless as he was. While he was so pursuing David, 
the Lord delivered 4iim into David's power twice,^ and David 
was advised by his followers to slay Saul, they saying that 
God had delivered him into his hands; which was true. 
Had David been an abolitionist, he would have followed the 
advice, reasoning thus: God has rejected Saul from being 
king of Israel, and anointed me in his place and stead. 
Saul, without cause or fault on my part, is trying to take 
my life ; and the law of self-defence allows me, in order to 
save my own life, to strike the first blow, and take his life 
if I can. God has now delivered him into my hands while 
pursuing after me to take my life, and has given me the 
opportunity to save my own life, and rid the throne of the 
rejected of God, and open the way to my own ascension of it, 
as promised by God through Samuel, who anointed me to 
the place now filled by Saul. This is a strong case, had 
David gone to reasoning upon it ; but he did not so go to 
reasoning and arguing the question. The law of the Lord 
said: "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no 
harm ;'*2 hence, David would not slay Saul, nor suffer his 
follower, Abishai, to do so ; " for," said he, " who can stretch 
forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guilt- 
less? "" He said furthermore, at the time, " the Lord shall 
smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend 
into battle and perish."* This last took place shortly after- 
wards. David even caused the Amalekite who falsely 
claimed to have killed Saul, to be slain because he had slain 
the Lord's anointed, stating to him that his blood was upon 
his own head, because he had testified against himself, as 
to the fact of having slain the Lord's anointed.'^ This kind 
of conduct of David, in strictly observing the law of the 
Lord, without reasoning as to the propriety or expediency 
of that course, or whether he could help to bring about the 

(1) 1 Sam. xxiv, 3, 4 ; xxvi, 7, 8. (4) 1 Sam. xxvi, 10. 

(2) 1 Chron. xTi, 21 ; Ps. cv, 15 ; Gen. xx, 2-17; xii, 17. (5) 2 Sam. i, 15, 16. 

(3) 1 Sam. xxvi, 9 . 



276 CONCLUSION OF THE 

purposes and decrees of God bj violating them, is the rea- 
son why he was a man after God's own heart, and was 
sought out by the Lord, and commanded by him to be cap- 
tain over his people.^ 

5. When David was bringing the ark of the Lord from 
Kirjath-jearim, from the house of Abinidab, upon an ox-cart, 
Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinidad, drove the cart. On 
the way the oxen stumbled and shook tjie ark ; and LTzzah, 
reasoning ^that if the ark fell from the cart, it Avould almost 
necessarily be broken or injured ; and being a pious Jew, 
anxious to preserve the ark of the testimony from injury or 
destruction, took hold of it to make it steady and prevent 
its falling from the cart and receiving injury. For this the 
Lord struck him dead upon the spot f because, by so doing, 
he violated that law of the Lord forbidding any but priests 
to touch the ark when traveling." 

Before noting other cases, I will sum up these that I have 
cited. In the first and third cases. Eve and Saul listened, 
and yielded to reasoning and argument, one of the serpent, 
and the other of the people; and the result was apostacy, 
from God, death and all the woes that human flesh is heir 
to, in the case of Eve ; and rejection from the throne of 
Israel, and the cutting off of his house afid posterity, in 
the case of Saul. Eve's was transgression of law ; Saul's 
was unrighteousness ; one doing what was forbidden ; the 
other failing to do what he was commanded to do. 

In the second and fourth cases, Abraham and David 
obeyed the word of the Lord at once, without arguing and 
reasoning themselves into different conclusions, leading to 
different action, than the direct and straightforward obe- 
dience of God's word ; and, for so doing, they occupy the 
highest places among the servants of God in the whole hu- 
man race. 

Poor Uzzah, out of zeal for God, and for the preserva- 
tion of his ark, put forth his unhallowed hand, took hold of 
it, and the penalty of God's law was immediately inflicted 
upon him. He and Saul both had religious grounds for 
their acts ; the one to preserve the ark from injury ; the 
other to procure sacrifices for God's altar. But their mis- 
taken piety did not shield them from the consequences of 

(1) 1 Sam.xiii, 14; Acts xiii, 22. (3) Num. iv, 15. 

(2) 2Sam. vi, 1-7; 1 Chroii. xiii. 5-10. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 277 , 

the transgression of God's law. God had appointed priests 
to take care of the ark, and it was their duty to do it, and 
not Uzzuh's. God's righteousness for the protection of the 
ark was to have it taken care of by the priests, and Uzzah 
had no right to interfere. God has also appointed means 
for the preservation of the ark of the new covenant, and 
christians ought to he careful not to attempt to preserve it 
otherwise. When they attempt to preserve it by means of 
civil governments, or political action, or by any other means 
than by the church, the body of Christ, "fitly joined anil 
compncted together " by the laws of the Lord for that pur- 
pose, thej are guilty of a sin similar to Uzzah's. 

It is proper also to note here, that the Philistines took 
the ark of God at the time that Ilophni and Phineas, the 
priests, were slain, kept it seven months, traveled it through 
their country from city to city, aud yet none of them Avore 
slain for touching it, which, of course, they did.^ Why 
were none of them slain for touching the ark? Because 
the law on that subject was not addressed to thern, but to 
the Israelites alone; and " where there is no law there is no 
transgression ;" and " sin is not imputed vrhen there is no 
law."^ Hence, the Philistines did not sin in touching the 
ark. 

Having noticed these cases of action recorded in the Old 
Testament, I will proceed to the New, and see how the 
Lord acted and taught on the subject. He never gave a 
philosophical reason or argument in relation to what should 
be done; but he did as to truths not relating to action. 

6. When tempted of the devil, Christ did not argue any 
of the questions raised by Satan, but ansv/ered with a law 
of God governing the question. If thou be the Son of 
God, said Satan, command that these stones be mtide bread. 
This was questioning his Sonship, and because he was hun- 
gry, using that craving to try to get him to attempt to do 
something not commanded* him of the Father. The Father 
had not commanded him to work miracles, to convince 
Satan of his Sonship, but the human family; and not mira- 
cles to supply his own wants, but to benefit and supply the 
wants of the halt, the lame, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, 
&c., of the human race. The Lord did hot answer as to 
his Sonship, but to his craving, and without arguing as to 

(I) 1 Sam. iv, 5; aud vi, 1. (2) Rom. iv, 15 ; v, 13. 



278 CONCLUSION OF THE 

that, he only quoted the law of God, ^' Man shall not live 
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of 
the mouth of God." 

When he showed him the kingdoms of the world, and of- 
fered them to him if he would worship him, he replied 
directly with the law of God on that subject, and not with 
an argument : " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
him only shalt thou serve." 

When set upon the pinnacle of the temple, and told to 
cast himself dowp, the devil tried Scripture on the Lord, 
thinking, no doubt, that he might ensnare him there, as the 
Lord seemed to stick so close to what was written. *' For 
it is written," said the devil with a very pious face put on, 
as thousands have since put on pious faces when quoting 
Scripture, and thereby misleading honest souls, "he shall 
give his, angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands 
they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot 
against a stone." This was all true; and abolitionists would 
have acceeded to it at once, and acted upon it. Or, if they 
had not acceded to it, they would have gone to arguing 
about it, to show by argument, that it should not be done. 
But the Lord took neither of those courses, but answered : 
"It is written again^ Thou shalt not tempt, try, or put to 
the proof, the Lord thy God." Abolitionists, however, 
have no compunctions about tempting, trying, or putting to 
the proof. Deeming themselves right in their theory, and 
that the angels of God will bear up everything else in their 
hands, and keep them from dashing against the rocks, they 
drive on recklessly and thoughtlessly of every other con- 
sideration. Being wrong, however, in their theory, the 
angels do not bear things up in their hands, and hence the 
ruinous dashing against the rocks that is now going on. 

Thus the Lord used the word of God directly, without 
any argument, or reasoning, or philosophizing. The word 
of God is the sword of the Spirit,^ to destroy error and 
falsehood with. It is sharper than a two-edged sword." All 
who drop it and look to reason, argument, deduction, con- 
clusions, philosophizings, apostatize from God, " become 
vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts become 
darkened."^ 

Having seen how the Lord acted so far as his own con- 

(1) Eph. vi, IT. (2) Heb. iv, 12. (3) Rom. i, 21. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 279 

duct is concerned, when assailed by the adversary, I will 
now see how he did when applied to by others to know 
what they should do. 

7. When a certain lawyer stood up and tempted or tried 
the Lord, saying, " Master, what shall I DO to inherit eter- 
nal life ? " The Lord did not go into an argument, nor into 
a philosophical disquisition, like Socrates, or Plato, or 
Cierco, or Seneca would have done, to show the beauty and 
propriety of virtue, as they called it, but promptly, and to 
the point, he answered, " What is written in the law? How 
readest thou?"^ 

The Lord reasoned and argued as to matters not pertain- 
ing to our conduct — what we are to do, or not to do — but 
of things that it was proper for us to know. When the 
Sadducees, who put the case of the woman who had been 
the wife of seven brethren, had been told that they erred 
not laiowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, the Lord 
argued the question thus with them: CJod spoke to you, 
saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob. God, said he, is not a God of the 
dead, but of the living.^ This was a conclusive argument 
that there is a resurrection of the dead, and that Sadducee- 
ism is untrue. But this is a tlmig proper for us to know, 
that is, that there will be a resurrection both of the just 
and the unjust; but it is not something that we must do or 
not do. Upon the question. What are we to do ? the Lord 
did not argue, but said, " It is written," or, " I say to you." 

8. As to matters not necessary for the human family to 
know, the Lord gave no information when applied to. In- 
stances under this head are, when the Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees sought a sign : and when his disciples desired to 
know if the Lord would at that time restore the kingdom. 
In the first case, he said a wicked and adulterous generation 
seek a sign, but no sign shall be given them, save the sign 
of the prophet Jonah ; and in the other, he told his disci- 
ples that it was not for them to know the times and seasons, 
which the Father had put in his own power.*^ 

These are enough instances to enable us to know the 
course the Lord pursued in his teaching. Many others 
could be cited to the same purport. 

(!) Luke X, 25, 26, (3) Matt, xii, 38, 39 ; xvi, 1-4 ; Mark viii, 11, 12 ; Acts i, 6, T. 
(2) Matt, xxii, 24-32. 



280 CONCLUSION OF THE 

9. When God revealed his Son in Paul, that he might 
preach hira among the Gentiles, "immediately he conferred 
not with flesh and blood," but went and did it.^ Mr. Wes- 
ley, in his note on this passage, says: "Being fully satis- 
fied of the divine will, ard determined to obey, I took no 
counsel with any man, neither taith my own i^mson or incli- 
nalions^ which might have raised numberless objections." 

I will cice a few instances from the history of Christianity 
since the apostolic day. 

The first great one that did so much injury to Christianity, 
and from the etTects of which it has not yet recovered, was 
the Arian anrl Athanasian controversy about the Father, 
Son and Spirit in the Divine Being. Reason and philoso- 
phy were invoked to settle matters about the divine exist- 
ence that woe not revealed, because not necessary for us 
to know, and which the human intellect is wholly incapable 
of knowing. All the fads necessary for us to know, are 
plainly revealed, and we can understand tliera ; the princi- 
pal of which are, that there is one God and Father of all; 
that Jesus (Jlirist is his Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and 
Power of God, by Avhom all things were made that are 
made ; that this Word was made flesh and dwelt among us ; 
that he was the manifestation of God in the flesh; that God 
so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that 
whosoever con fi. led in him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life, kc. That when he ascended on high, the Holy 
Spirit of G^)d, according to the promise of the Father, de- 
scended to his disciples to remain with them till the Lord 
shall appear again. Instead of being satisfied with the 
facts revealed, and which were pertinent for them to know, 
and which thf^y could understand, they set to work with 
their philosophy, to determine the essentce of the Father 
and Son, and how the F.tther, Son and Spirit make but one 
God, &c., matters not revealed, and if revealed, could not 
be coraprehtiiidtMl by them : and for one hundred years and 
more, all Christendom was shaken by the controversy, and 
christians were drawn off from obeying the righteousness of 
God revealed in the Gospel for them TO do, to bickerings 
about these speculations, the disputants trying to get wise 
above what is written, and to supply what God had not re- 
vealed of his own being and existence, and resulting in the 

(1) Gal. i, 15, 16. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 281 

great npostacy. The effects of that foolish, not to say 
wicked, controversy, Christianity has not yet got rid of. 

Because the Lord told Peter that he would give him the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever he bound 
on ejirth should be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever he 
loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven ;* by adopting 
argument, philosophy, reason, and deduction, as the proper 
course to pursue, the Man of Sin deduces that this made 
Peter the chief or prince of the apostles ; that Peter went 
to Rome, and became the first bishop of Rome; that the 
Popes are his successors in regular line; that he had the 
keys to open and shut all matters in heaven and on earth, 
and so have the Popes ; that Peter was the vicar of Christ, 
and the Popes being his successors, are vicars too, and 
hence they have been styled Lord God the Pope. This 
came of christians allowing themselves to be spoiled through 
philosophy and vain deceit as to the existence of God, and 
the delegation of his power. 

And because the Lord, after his resurrection when he ap- 
peared to his di.-iciples, and showed them his hands and his 
side to i<lentify his person, told them, that as his Father 
had sent him into the world, even so he sent them into tho 
world, ^'' and when he had said this, he breathed on them, 
and said to them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit : whosesoever 
sins you remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whoseso- 
ever sins ye retain, they are retained,"^ this Man of Sin, by 
philosophical argument, reason and deduction, draws from 
this transaction proof of auricular confession to the priest, 
an<l the power of pardonii; /, by that priest, of the sins con- 
fessed. 

Whereas, the truth of God— the knowledge of God com- 
municated in his inspired word — shows that Peter used the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven given to him by the Lord, 
first on the day of Pentecost next after the crucifixion, 
wh.en he ufiiocked the kingdom or reign of heaven to the 
Jewish world, and bound and loosed as to who should come 
in and who should not; and some eight years afterwards, 
he was taken to the house of Cornelius by a series of mira- 
cles, because he had the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
and ivas (he only one the Lord had authorized to use them, 
antl he then and there unlocked the kingdom, and threw 

(1) MatUxvi. 19. (3) John xx, 20*23, 

Id 



282 coNCLUsroN of the 

wide open the door to the Gentile world, and bound and 
loosed i'or all time to come in earth and heaven as to them, 
;\ i\f h;id previously done as to the Jews. Those doors thus 
thrown open by Peter, who really had the keys, can not be 
either shut or opened by Pope, Prelate, Council, General 
Assembly, General Conference, Synod, nor by any individ- 
ual or ecclesiastical body, since the apostles ; that matter 
was ^iveu ,,\ > ')nr;^e to Peter, and to Peter alone. 

And the knowledge of God also shows, that it was the 
apostles that the Lord breathed on, and told them that 
whosesoever sins they remitted, should be remitted unto 
tihem ; and that whosesoever sins they retained, should be 
retained unto them ; and that Peter, on the day of Pente- 
cost, in the pro?once of the other apostles, and of the whole 
one hundred and twenty disciples, speaking as the Spirit 
gave him utterance, laid down the law of remission and re- 
tention of sins, specifying whose should be remitted, and 
whose should be retained. This he bound on earth by the 
words then and there spoken, and by the word of the Lord, 
when he promised the keys to Peter, it was immediately 
])0und in heaven.* And at the house of Cornelius, he 
bound and loosed the same way to the Gentile world f 
which was ratified and confirmed by the college of apostles 
at Jerusalem, when Peter rehearsed the matter to them.^ 
The apostles continued to judge or give laws to the Israel 
of God, the one now man made by the Lord, of Jews and 
Gentiles, binding and loosing as to sins, for which see their 
writings in the New ^J'estament. And the knowledge of 
God shows us that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors 
and teachers, were given by the Lord lill his disciples should 
come to a perfect man in tlie knowledge of the Son of God;^ 
that when the laws of the kingdom were fully developed, 
when the perfect system came, that which was given by the 
Lord to the church in part, to- wit, apostles, A:c., were to be 
taken away and cease.'' The apostles and supernatural 
gifts were taken away. The apostles have no successors, 
for they did the whole v/ork they were appointed for. They 
were sent into the world by the Lord, as the Lord was sent 
iuto the world by the Father.*^ If the apostles have suc- 
cessors in their mission on earth, so has the Lord. But 



Ct) Actsii, 38, 35); Matt, xvi, 19, (3) Acta xi, 18. (5) 1 Cor. xlii, 9, 10. 

i;i) ActM X. (4) Eph. iT, 11-13. (6) John xx, 21. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 283 

neither lias successors. The Lord and the apostles both 
did their mission fully, and have been received up into glory. 

I will not go over in detail, but refer in general terms, to 
the numerous sins and acts of rigliteousness (penances, &c.) 
that have, for fifteen centuries, been manufactured by the 
Mother of Harlots, and her numerous daughters, by argu- 
ment, inference and deduction, called by the good word of 
the Lord *' philosophy and vain deceit ;" or, as translated in 
the new translation, ""deceitful philosophy.'' As to which, 
christians are commanded by God, to '* bewnre lest any man 
make a prey of you through an empty and deceitful philos- 
ophy, according to the tradition of men, according to the 
elements of the w^orld, and not according to Christ. For 
all the fulness of the Deity resides substantially in him ; 
and you are complete iri Jdm, who is the head of all govern- 
ment and power. "^ The way to abide, or remain in the 
Lord, is to keep his comratindments,^ and not to be led away 
by deceitful philosophy. If christians thus abide in him, 
they become complete, lacking nothing. But if they follow 
deceitful philosophy, they get out of Christ — do not remain 
in him — apostatize, and go away from God. If we want to 
avoid apostacy from God, we must avoid running after rea- 
son and a deceitful philosophy, as to what his commands 
are, as to what is sinful, and as to what is righteous. And 
yic should take his word at what it says, without question 
or gainsaying. 

For, sin is the transgression of the law; not a trans- 
gression of the argument from the lavv'. All unrighteous- 
ness (or failing to do what God requires) is sin. Sin is 
not imputed when there is no law. Whore there is no law, 
there is no transgression. ]5y the law i 'he knowledge of 
sin obtained, and not by argument. I had not known sin 
but by the lav/ : for I had not known lust (inordinate desire) 
except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 

Take these principles that I have elaborated at some 
length, and appiy them to brother Butler's number six, and 
they show how weak, and how far-fetched is his attempt 
(deceitful philosophy) to prove slavery sinful by the story 
of the prodigal son,- related by the Lord in the 15th chap- 
ter of Luke. Weak as were his efforts to sustain his prop- 
osition while I was his respondent, he became still weaker 

(1) Col. ii, 8-10, New Tt-ans. (2) John xv, 10, and 4.-7; 1 John ii, C, 6. 



284 CONCLUSION OF THE 

when I was thrust out of the debate. What he says about 
the prodigal son is too weak to need any farther notice. 

1 will notice the other matters in the article. In the 8th 
'chapter of John, the Lord was talking of bondage or 
filavery ; fi)r bondage was slavery in the Jewish law. He 
said : " He that committeth sin is the slave of sin : and 
the slave abideth not in the house forever • but the Son 
abide'th forever. If, therefore, the Son shall make you free, 
you will be free indeed."' Mr. Wesley, on the passage, 
says.: -^^ And (he slave ahideih not in the house — AH sinners 
shall be cast out of God's house, as the slave was out of 
Abraham's: hut /, th- Son, abide therein forever. ^^ Brother 
Butler's definition about tenures is made to suit his case, 
and is not true. A man can be as much a slave for five 
years, as he can for five hundred years Is he held to ser- 
vice ? is the question ; not how long is he to be so held? 

Now, I say as long as the heir is a minor, he differs 
nothing from a bondman, although he be Lord of all. For 
he is under tutors and stewards, until the time appointed 
of his Father. So, also, w^e, whilst we were minors, were 
in bondage under the elements of the world. But when 
the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, born 
of a woman, born under the law, that he might buy off 
those under the law, that we might recei^'e the adoption of 
sons. And because you arc sons, God has sent forth the 
Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 
So you are no more a bondman, but a son ; and if a son, 
then an heir of God through Christ.^ 

This quotation is sufficient to answer what he says on the 
passage. Servant m Scripture, says Mr. Webster, means 
a slave, a oo7idi)i,..i. This translation has bondman through- 
out. The C{jmmon version has bondage in the od and 9th 
verses, which shows that bondman is the proper word in 
the 1st and 7th verses. What is so often repeated by bro- 
ther Butler about chattel property, is raising a cob house 
that he may demolish it. It is not involved in the question 
of slave or no slave, as applied to an individual; and this 
question I have sufficiently discussed hereinbefore. 

I will now proceed to conclude my discussion of the 
proposition. Slavery is sinful. 

*' And the Lord said unto her, [Rebecca] Two nations 

(1) John Tiii, 84r-36, WesUy'i Trant. (2) Gal. iv, 1-7, Ifew Trans. 



f 
DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 285 

are in thy vromb, and two manner of people shall be sepa- 
rated from thy bcwels : and the one people shall be stronger 
than the other people ; and the elder shall serve f he younger. ^'^ 
Here God granted property in the posterity of one twin 
brother, to the posterity of the other twin brother. This 
grant was reduced to possession by David, the man after 
God's own heart, more than seven hundred years after it 
was made.^ 

The tenth commandment reads thus : 

" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt 
not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his 
maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is 
thy neighbors.''^ 

Here, in the first written law ever given to man, written 
by the finger of God, property in men-servants and maid- 
servants is recognized, as property in houses, fields, oxen, 
and asses is recognized. And property in men-servants and 
maid-servants is not only placed on the same level with prop- 
erty in animals of the brute creation, but with the very lowest 
animal of the brute creation — the ass. Had brother Goodwin 
been there at Mount Sinai when this law was spoken by the 
Lord out of the smoking and burning mountain, he would, 
at once, have said this is an unrighteous law ; for " I con- 
clude that any law that places human beings on a level with 
brute property, is an unrighteous law"M! *' It is too jre- 
volting for my moral feelings "^ ! ! Had brother Butler 
been there, he would have said it is "so abhorrent, and so 
offensive to the moral sense, that I confess I am not able 
to look steadily and calmly at it;" it " is a thought too re- 
volting for calm consideration "^ ! ! But they were not 
there to correct the Lord ; and they are now laboring, and 
have been for years, to rectify the error ! 

Query : Was this part of the Decalogue taken out of the 
way and nailed to the Cross by the Lord? I apprehend 
not. If not, the abolitionists have been violating it ever 
since they sprang up ; for they have been coveting — inor- 
dinately desiring — the men-servants and maid-servants of 
their slaveholding neighbors; and they have been so inor- 
dinately desiring them, that they have been enticing them 



(1) Gen. XXV, 23. (4) Ante, p, 19. 

(2) 2 Sam. viii, 14 ; 1 Chron. xviii, 13. (5) Ante, p. 87. 

(3) Ex. XX, 17; Deut. V, 21. (6) Ante, p. 69. 



286 coNCLueio.v of the 

away, and running them off for "years ; and have established 
lines calied underground railroads to run them off upon, 
and boast of the fact, and of the business. 

Brother Butler contended in his fifth article, that the 
slaves granted by the Lord to Israel, of the hen then round 
about them, Avere to go free at the jubilee.^ Brother Good- 
win took the same ground in two articles in the Record of 
March od and 10th, 1863, in reply to a request from bro- 
ther Wra. H. Winchell. They all seemed to be troubled, 
too, about the povrer to sell slaves. That need not trouble 
any one. For if orse is a slave for life, it vtould be no 
worse for the slave, if the master had power to sell ; and it 
might be better, if he had a bad master, that that master 
had the power to sell him to a good one. I wiil examine 
these matters some. 

The grant is recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of Le- 
viticus, from the 44th to the 46th verse inclusive. To say 
that it does not grant an estate of inheritance in perpetuity 
to the Israelites and their posterit}^, is to contradict the 
plain language of the grant. And to take the ground that 
it only granted estates from jubilee to jubilee, is to take 
the ground assumed by Universalists, that forever does not 
mean altrai/s, but only to the next jubilee, or to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, or to some other vague time. But this 
statute of the Lord, recorded in that chapter, is self-ex- 
pounding, so far lis forever and io the jubilee are concerned, 
which I will proceed to show. 

It sets out with the establishment of the Sabbatic weeks, 
ending with the jubilee, at which time they were to "pro- 
claim libert}^ throughout all the lands unto all the irdiabi- 
tants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and yo shall 
return every man unto his family."^ *'In this jubilee je 
shall return every man to his possession."" It provides 
that "the land shall not be sold forevrr ; for the land is 
mine ; for ye were strangers and sojourners with me. x\nd 
in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemp- 
tion for the land.""* It then provides how lands that are 
sold are to be redeemed, and goes on : "But if he bo not 
able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall re- 
main in the hand of him that bought it, until the year of 
jubilee: and in the jubilee it shall go out, and he shall re- 

(1) Ante, pp. 162, 163. (2) Verse 10. (3) Verse 13. (4) Verses 23, 34. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 287 

turn unto his possession."^ But it goes on to provide, that 
a dwelling house in a walled city, must be redeemed within 
a year after it is sold; and if not redeemed within that 
space of time, " then the house that is in the walled city 
ehall be established forever to him that bought it, through- 
out his generations : it shall not go out in the jubilee."^ 

Here, forever and in the jubilee are put down as two dis- 
tinct things, and not the same thing. And here it is said 
that some land shall not go out, and the former owner return 
to it, notwithstanding in the 10th and 13th verses, it is said 
evert/ man shall return to his possession at th€ jubilee, as it 
is said that liberty shall then be proclaimed to all the iiihab- 
itants of the land. But the statute goes on and makes an 
exception to the houses of the Levites in their cities.^ 

Then commences the provisions as to servants and slaves. 
** If thy brother by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto 
ihee, [as provided in this and other laws] ; thou shalt not 
compel him to serve as a bond-servant [slavej : but as an 
hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall bo with thee, and 
shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee : and then he shall 
depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and 
shall return unto his family, and unto the possession of his 
fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which 
I brought out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold 
as bondmen [are sold]. Thou shalt not rule over him with 
rigor, but shalt fear thy God. Both thy bondmen and thy 
bondmaids, [slaves] which thou shalt have, shall be of the 
heathen that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy 
bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the 
strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, 
and of their families that are with you, which they begat 
ill 3^our land : and they shall be your possession. And ye 
shall take them as an inheritance for your children after 
you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your 
bondmen forever: but over your brethren, the children of 
Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."* 

The statute then goes on to provide that if a sojourner 
or stranger wax rich, and an Israelite become poor, and 
sell himself to the stranger or sojourner, he may be re- 
deemed by the brother or kindred of the Israelite, pre- 
scribing the manner in which the price shall be reckoned 

D) Verse 2S- (2) Verse 30. (3) Verses 32-34. (4) Lev. xxv, 3&-46. 



288 



CONCLUSION OP THE 



up to the next jubilee, according to the time of a hired ser- 
vant, and that as a yearly hired servant he shall remain 
with him, and that if he be not redeemed in these years 
then lie shall go out in the year of jubilee, both he and his 
children with him ; the same reason being given for this 
provision as to Israelites sold to strangers or sojourners 
that was before given for the provision, as to Israelites sold 
to Israelites, to- wit, "For unto me the children of Israel 
are servants ; they are my servants, whom I brought forth 
out of the land of Egypt : I am the Lord your God/^^ 

Here is an estate of inheritance granted in bondmen or 
saves, to the Israelites and their children, forever ; and a 
clear distinction is drawn between the tenure by which they 
were held, and the tenure by which servants who were of 
the children of Israel were held, whether they were held by 
Israehtes or by strangers or sojourners. The bondmen 
were to be a possession; they were to be taken as an inherit 
iance far their children, to inherit it as a possession; and 
to be bondmen forever. Why was it provided that they 
were to be an estate of inheritance, and bondmen forever 
immediately after and before estates in other servants were 
granted that were limited to terminate at the jubilee in any 
event, if the estate in these bondmen was to terminate at 
the jubilee too? It would be trifling in the divine law- 
giver, to describe the tenure of the services of three differ- 
ent kinds of servants, Israelites to Israelites, Israelites to 
strangers and sojourners, and heathen to Israelites, provi- 
ding that the first two should go out at the jubilee, and that 
the other should be an estate of inheritance forever to them 
and their children for a possession forever, when he actually 
meant that they should go out at the jubilee too, and that 
the estate m them extended only to the jubilee. The divine 
iaw-giver did not so trifle in framing the statute. The es- 
tate given by the statute, in bondmen, is an estate in per- 
petuity to the slave and his children. 

But they say that this statute does not give nower to 
sell the bondmen or slaves. Brother Goodwin says : '^Tho 
Jewish master had no authority given him to sell such ser- 
vants to third persons. ^ You shall take them as an inheri- 
tance for your children after you, to inherit them for a pos- 
session, says the law; not as an artic le of commerce— a 

(1} Lev. xxv» 4T-65. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 



-289 



mere chattel— to be traded and driven from land to land, 
by speculators in human flesh."^ 

This thing of chattelizing and selling slaves, is a great 
trouble to the abolitionists. I have had private conversa- 
tions on the subject with many excellent brethren, Avho 
made the fact that the slaves are assignable and transierra- 
ble, the principal ground, and some of them made it the 
only ground, for saying that slavery is sinful- The objec- 
tion is an objection against the law of the institution, and 
not an objection against the institution itself; and really 
does not arise in the inquiry. Is slavery sinful 1 When 
brother Butler raised the objection, we were discussing the 
question whether God had granted property in man. In 
that discussion, it was immaterial whether the grant God 
gave to Israel of property in the heathen for slaves, inclu- 
ded the giant of power to alienate that property, or not. 
Entailed property is as much property as is property which 
is alienable. So brother Goodwin's decision above cited, if 
it is correct, simply shows that the statute made the bond- 
men entailed property to the Israelite and his children; 
and the bondmen and their children were both property 
and slaves, and were granted by the divine law-giver, and 
were held by virtue of a divine grant. 

But brother Goodwin was answering an inquiry from 
brother Winchell, who wanted to know from him ''if any 
law, which God ever gave to man, authorized or justified 
the buying or selling of men, women and children.'' And 
brother Goodwin, in the above quoted passage, decided the 
question, that he did not ; and all his authority for the de- 
cision, is given in what is above quoted from him. 

As many are, honestly I have no doubt, stumbling on 
this question, I will proceed to show that brother Good- 
win's decision is not correct. 

The part of the statute that he quotes as proof that 
bondmen were entailed property — to be be kept in the 
family of the owner — simply creates an estate of inheri- 
tance m perpetuity in the bondmen and their posterity. It 
is not a limitation creating an estate tail, but an expression 
to create an estate of inheritance in perpetuity. Our com- 
mon deeds read ''to him and his heirs forever," and no one 
supposes that that creates an estate tail, and prevents the 

' ~~ (1) Christiaa Record, March 3(1, 1863. 



^^^ CONCLUSION OF THE 



grantee from alienating the estate the next Jay if he 
tTT- f.''^«°"fthi3 grant. It was to tl,e iLe itet 
and then- children forever: creating an estate in perpetu y 
to be alienated or not, at the will of the holder. ^' 

=nn V" r? S"'*?,"^" ""i""! creation to Noah and his 
•sons, he d,d not add, "you may buy and sell them '' be 

powei to buy and sell them, but entailed them upon the 
Noar.;ulV-"' «'"'<"-en, the ^rant of the animal ere'at.on to 

a light to sell our horses, cattle and hogs, but must keen 
them with ourselves and our children. When the lima 
creation was granted to Adam, the same rule obtained 

nnon tl^e h ■ ^""" rT'^ '' ^''"'^' ^"^ P"' limitations 
."■^111 ed "tV"1 ""'.' 'f""*'?"^ *^ 1-nd, because he wanted 
It Jmiited. If he had not put in those limitations the 
Israe ites would have had unlimited powers of alie 'ti ' 
bo as to Israehtish servants. God limited the power of 
alienation a^ to them, because he did not want thlm to be 

1 mUuirn h r^'Tr''" -"' ''"^ "°"'^^ '-^« been, if th 

mitationhad not been put into the law. The reason of 
this IS twice given: " For they are my servants which! 
brought out of the land of Eg^pt."' I p.-ovent t g „ 
eral power o alienation implied from the grant of properfv 
m tnem God provided, as to them, that ""they sha not t 
old as bondmen.-' They were to be kept i^ the fam ly 
and treated as hired servants, and not to be ruled over wiU 
rigor, and .;,<>„« no> be sold as bondmen are sold, anda e 

Uiem. Ihis clause prohibiting Israelites to be sold as bond- 
inen, ,s an expression of the lawgiver clearly implying 
tha bondinen were alienable, and "articles of LnnJ"" 
So the statute itself disproves brother Goodwin's dec sion 
given to brother Winehell. Brother Butler did not tn^ 
hat bondmen were alienable. He is too good a lawyer to 
take .such a position publicly. He placed it upon the 
ground that they went out at the jubilee ' 

Again: It was provided that "if a man sell his daughter 

lants do^'l^'T'"".'' ''" '^'f ""' SO out as the mender- 
vantsd o. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed 

(1) Lev. ,xv. 42, 55. ^iT^-. ,,,, «. ^^ri^i;:^^!^;^^- 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. -» 291 

her to himself, .ben sh.ll he let her be redeemed : t(. sell 
her unto a strange r.ation he shall have no po^^er, ieein^ 
he hath dealt deceitfully with her. „„>,;KiHn<T the 

Why put this prohibition into the k^-, V'?}-f''^l ^ 

n,aster fJom .elUilg her to ,;V^'™"S%";;'°:.'; '[,,;'' I'l ■ 
the power of alienation? The very fact that this piohiu 
don-was put in, shows that the power o-^f'l^f^J^^^ 
general grant, and could have been exercised '-1 "«* ^^ 
Clause pl-oliibuing it been P---' i;,,^;:';\:l:e" 
:l!r ro^ le Ls e^'.becar he had dealt deceitfully with 
h s mahHervant. As a punishment for that deceit, the law 
denr ve him of a right he had, to sell her to a Hraje na- 
S" :.{nch was a rfght to sell her "as an artic^ ot conv 
merce " "to be traded and driven from land to lanu. he 
cate of that deceit, he was prohibited from selling her as 
Tarticc of commeWe to a strange nation, ^^l ^equu-ed 
to let her be redeemed by her kins-folks, as provided m the 
twentv-fifth chapter of Leviticus. ,. . , .„ ., k» 

So%iso, the Clause forbidding ^^^'^'^^^^^''^"^^^ 
sold ;s bondmen, is a limitation upon a "gl'Vlf ;'''?. 
,^ossessed That clause must mean one of two tilings . 
eitiert atthey should not be sold as bondmen were sold 
:" hat hey slLld not be sold a. hondmen, *'''-, bo do 
serve in perpetuity as bondmen haveto serve. And either 
construe ion shows brother Goodwin's decision wrong 

The play upon the word chattd, constantly indulged m 
by'i^tio^iistl amounts to nothing. If slaves are prop- 
erty they are either chattel property or eal P™P«'Y' 
«nd it is no more degrading to be one than the other. 
tl, .lie constant ha?ping by abolitionists, upon tje word 
dwlU^ rin^nng the changes " human chattel, ,.'"*«;'»"''''. 
" th" Vr' chattels," " chattel property," " <^t'^^"« -ed &c 
as senseless as their theory is groundless i'he "^e ot ep. 
thets always implies a want of anything better to use, and, 
either weakness or wickedness in those that use them. 
I will now proceed to the New lestament. 
The Lord said that the kingdom or reign of ^ea '«" ^ 
like a man about to travel into a far -"f y^ f ^^^^^ , 
servants and delivered to them his goods. i« «"« '« -^\« 
five talents, to another two, and to another one__talcnt,_ancl 



(1) Ex. xii, 7, 8. 



''^^ CONCLUSION OP THE 

master tlie comniendjif nn '* W^^.n a i , \. 

.."»., .1,0. ,,.„"trr.,,l''.tr;'';:;\s'„l'Si 
-./..';l, I .;s K;?i^; .rsri'.': ;;;,v::r 

~i)i»s "i..r. Ho. i,.„ .., „,„.„„, .,i"; ';''": 

ill ^TT , ';"'K"'-'S''. moclei-nizej and turned or trans- 

no right to my labor ; and, because you claim it andwant it 
you are s,nul guilty of a coll»ss;i crime, a monster in 
iqmty, which . the sum of all villianies, 'and a modern" 

;^/;:;:iiirof i:ur^ '-'-' -'-- ^^-^^"^ 

^nd^ie Wd iells^i^tl,aUhn<^^ 

(1) Matt. «T, 14-30. ^— T— 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 298 

is the christian kingdom, is like this. Is it sinful ? Is it 
wicked? Is it a monster iniquity? Had not abolitionists 
better quit using the argument which the man with the one 
talent did, lest his fate be awarded to them ? 

This part of the parable, as recorded by Luke, reads 
thus : " For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man : 
thou takest up that thou lay est not down, and reapest that 
thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine 
own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou 
knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid 
not down, and reaping that I did not sow :^ Wherefore," &c. 

The Lord judged him out of his own mouth, and pro- 
nounced him wicked^ because he knew that his master was 
an austere man, taking up what he had not laid down, and 
reaping what he had not sown, and yet did not put the 
money to use and make gain for his master. 

As recorded by both I\Iatthew and Luke, the two slaves 
(for that is what Webster says servant means in the Scrip- 
tures) wlio had been finthful and diligent, were highly com- 
mended and rewarded for that diligent service 3f their mas- 
ter, and doubling of his goods during his absence. The 
Lord notes it as something greatly praisev/orthy in them, 
that they had so acted, and conducted, and demeaned them- 
• selves, in their master's service, during his absence. 
Whereas, on the other hand, the slave vtho had done noth- 
ing for his master, but had wholly neglected his master's 
interesf, and his master's service — strictly honest, however, 
with his master's money, had hid it and kept it securely, 
and br(Higlit it safely to the master when he returned — was 
condemned by the Lord for being slothful, lazy, and negli- 
gent of his master's interest, and of his master's service; 
which conduct in that slave was pronounced by the Lord 
WICKED, and he was condemned to very severe punishment 
for it. 

Again, the Lord, speaking to his disciples, said: "But 
which of you, having a servant plovring or feeding cattle, 
will say to him as soon as he cometh from the field, Come 
and sit down to table? And will not rather say to him, 
Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself and 
serve me tdl I have eaten, and afterward thou shalteat and 
drink ? Doth he thank that servant because he did the 



(1) Luke xix, 21, 22. 



294 CONCLUSION OF THE 

things that wore commanded of him ? I think not. So 
likewise ye, when ye have done all the things that are com- 
manded yon, say, We are unprofitable servants : we have 
done what it was our duty to do.''* 

Here the Lord recognized, as proper and right, the au- 
thority of the master over the slave, and that the master 
should not set the slave down at once to his meal, when he 
came from the field ; but that, instead of so doing, he should 
command tho slave to make ready the master's supper, to 
gird himself and serve his master till he had eaten ; and 
then afterwards, to eat and drink himself. And he said 
the master would not thank tho slave because he had obeyed 
his commands, for the reason that he had orJy done thai 
which it was his duty to do. 

That the Lord taught that it was the duty of the slave to 
do so, and that he was not entitled to thanks for so doing, is 
clear ; because he, from the conduct of the master to the 
slave, enjoins it upon his disciples, to whom he was speak- 
iag, when they had done all things commanded them, to 
say they had bat done that which it was their duty to do, 
and w^ere unprofitable slaves. He could enfoi-ce it upon his 
disciples to say that they had but done their duty from the 
statement he had made as to the conduct of the master and 
slave, only on the ground that the slave had bui done his 
duty in the case stated, and was not entitled to thanks. 

Here the Lord recoguized the relation of master and, 
slave, and the institution of slaver}', as it existed all around 
him, and ail over the Roman empire in Avhich he wns teach- 
ing, and recognized the authority and rights of the master 
to the slave's labor, and to precedence over the slave, and 
that it was the duty of the slave to be faithful and obedient 
to his master, without being entitled to thanks for being so; 
and from these facts, he impressed it upon his disciples, 
that his right and their duty to him were similar ; that it 
was their duty to obey his commands, because he was their 
Master. 

As the Lord reconrnized the rio-lit of the master and the 
duty of the slave, and used the fact of the existence of that 
right and duty, to impress upon his disciples his right over 
them and their duty to him, is it worth while to inquire 
whether the relation of master and slave — the institution 

(1) Luke xvii, T-10, Wesley's Trani4aUon. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 295 

of slavery — is sinful ? Or, rather, is it not more proper to 
inquire whether there are any who really love the Lord, 
and revere his word and teaching, who will affirm that it is 
sinful? Would he use the rights and duties created by, 
and existing under, a sinful institution, to inculcate and en- 
force rights and duties in his kingdom? Let christians, 
particuhirly those inclined to abolitionism, think of and re- 
flect upon these things. 

The Lord, upon several other occasions, taught matters 
pertaining to his kingdom, by reference to the relation of 
master and slave, and the power of the one and the duty 
of the other. I shall not refer to the particular instances, 
and note the cases separately. The reader can look them 
up as cited in the foot-note.' I make these general remarks 
upon them. 

The system of slavery established by the Jewish law, ex- 
isted in the country and among the people where he taught; 
and also the Roman system of slavery, which was a most 
severe one, the master having even the power of life and 
death over his slaves. These two systems or institutions 
of slavery existed among, and were Aveli understood by the 
people. The Lord used them to exemplify and elucidate 
the principles of his approaching kingdom, upon repeated 
occasions. Now, is it rational to suppose that he would so 
refer to an institution, to its lav.'s and usages, to the rights 
and liabilities of masters and slaves, created by, existing 
in, and recognized under the institution, if it ivas sinful? 
Is it not most irrational to suppose that he would? In all 
his references to it, he always commended the faithful and 
obedient slave, and denounced disobedience and unfaithful- 
ness in slaves. Hence Paul, in writing to Timothy upon 
this subject, referred to this reaching of the Lord as being 
'' wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness;"^ 
which I shall have occasion to observe upon at length, when 
I shall reach it; and which m}^ dear brother Wiley so often 
referred to in our friendly discussion, and which I did not 
reach for comment upon, before that discussion ended. 

" But as God has distributed to every one, and as the 
Lord has called every one, so let him walk; and so, in all 
the congregations, I ordain. Has any circumcised been 

(1) Matt, xviii, 23-35 ; xxiv, 45-51 ; Luke xii, 3T, 38, 42-48. (2) 1 Tim. vi, 8, 



296 CONCLUSION OP THE 

called ? Let him not be uncircumcised. Has any one been 
called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. 
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision nothing, but 
the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every one 
remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were 
you called being a bondman? Be not careful to be made 
free. Yet, if you can be made free, prefer it. For a bond- 
man who is called by the Lord, is the Lord's freedman. In 
like manner, also, a freedman who is called, is Christ's bond- 
man. You were bought with a price : become not the slaves 
of men. Brethren, in what state each one was called, in 
that let him remain with God."^ 

I will first give some of Mr. Wesley's notes and com- 
ments upon this passage. 

" 17. Bid as God hath distributed — The various stations of 
life, and the various relations to every one, let him take 
care to discharge his duty therein. The Gospel disannuls 
none of these : and thus I ordain in all the churches — As a 
point of the highest concern. 

'' 20 In the calling — The outward state wherein he is 
when God calls him. Let him not seek to change this with- 
out a clear direction of Providence. 

"2L Care not for it — Do not anxiously seek liberty, hut 
if thou canst be free, use it rather — Embrace the opportunity. 

*'23. Ye are bought ivHh a price — l^e belong to God: 
therefore, where it can be avoided, do not become the bond- 
slaves of men —which may expose you to many temptations. 

" 24. Therein abide toith God — Doing all things as unto 
God, and as in his immediate presence. They who thus 
abide with God, preserve a holy indifference with regard 
to outward things.''^ 

This was ordained in all the churches, "as a point of the 
highest concern," said Mr. Wesley, and, of course, is a 
standing statute for all the churches now. And that man 
or that church that disobeys this ordinance is guilty of un- 
righteousness, which is sin. If he or they transgress its 
injunctions, it is sin. The teacher that stands up in the 
christian congregation, and teaches contrary to this ordi- 
nance, transgresses the law of God, and thereby sins; and 
this is true, and applies to him, whether he be a bishop, 
pastor, or deacon of a church, or an evangelist, or an editor 

(1) 1 Cor. vii, 17-24, J^^ew Trantlation, 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 297 

of a newspaper. For the command of God to those who 
attempt to teach in the Lord's kingdom, is, to hold fast the 
faithful word as they have been taught by the Lord's in- 
spired apostles, including this ordinance, that they may be 
able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convince the 
gainsayers.^ Let abolition bishops, pastors, deacons, evan- 
gelists, and editors, think of these things. 

This ordinance teaches and enjoins, that if any one is 
called into the kingdom of Christ, being a slave, he should 
be not anxious to be made free, that he should not inordi- 
nately desire or covet freedom ; yet if he can properly be 
made free, let hira prefer it, and thank God for the bless- 
ing, being careful not to use his liberty for a cloak of mali- 
ciousness or wickedness, but as the servant of God.^ Abo- 
litionism teaches that slaves should earnestly desire freedom, 
and may obtain it by any means, even by that of servile in- 
surrection. This ordinance enjoins that every one, inclu- 
ding slaves, should remain in the calling, state and condi- 
tion, in which he was when called into the kingdom of 
Christ; but abolitionism teaches that they should not ; but 
that they should be freed, even at the fearful and tremend- 
ous cost of a civil war, with all its crimes and horrors. 

The slave that is called by the Lord is the Lord's freed- 
man; but that does not change his station in this world, nor 
his relations as to things of this world. Mr. Yv^esley cor- 
rectly said, that the Gospel disannuls none of these. The 
injunction here is, that he should remain in the station in 
which he is called. The potion that becoming a christian 
frees a slave, is an abolition phantasy. For in the same 
manner that a slave's becoming a christian makes him 
Christ's freedman, the freeman's becoming a christian 
makes him Christ's bondman or slave. If the station and 
relations that one holds in this world are changed by his 
becoming a christian, the station and relations of the other 
are also changed by his becoming a christian. Will aboli- 
tionists, who were free when they became christians, admit 
that their station in life and their relations in society were 
changed by their becoming christians, and that they became 
slaves and subordinates ? I apprehend not. Then the 
slaves' station and relations in society are not changed by 
their becoming christians. 

(1) Tit. i, 9. (2) 1 Pet. ii, 16. 

20 



298 CONCLUSION OF THE 

Christians are bought by the Lord with a price, and a 
great price, no less a price than the blood of the Son of 
God. For that reason, they should not become the slaves 
of men. This is the same reason that was twice given in 
the law of Moses, why the Israelites should not be perpet- 
ual bondmen and slaves — because they were the Lord's ser- 
vants brought or redeemed by him out of Egypt.' Chris- 
tians are bought and brought by the Lord out of the Egyp- 
tian darkness, in wliich the world of mankind are without 
his illuminating light, and brought into the ghirious light 
and liberty of the (lospel; and for that reason, they are 
here, prohibited from becoming the slaves of men. By the 
law of Moses, the six-year Hebrew servant might volun- 
tarily become a slave forever,^ and Israelites might become 
slaves till the jubilee,^ by voluntarily selling themselves, or 
by being sold for debt: and, by the Roman law of slaveiy, 
a man might enslave himself by voluntary mancif>ation of 
himself, with or without a consideration, or he might be- 
come a slave by being sold for debt. In all these ways, in 
both laws, the man became a slave directly or indirectly, 
by his own act. Both of those laws were observed among 
the people in that day. Hence this injunction to chiistians 
that they should not, either directly or indirectly, hy ilinr 
own act, become slaves of men. And this was but the first 
and last injunction in the passage quoted, that every one 
should remain in the calling, state and condition in which 
he was when called or converted to Christianity. If he was 
a freeman, he should remain so; whereas, though the slave 
was enjoined to remain contented in the condition he was, 
yet if he could properly be made free, he was permitted 
and directed to accept it. Under the Mosaic dispensation, 
the Lord allowed his servants to make themselves servants 
to men; but under the christian dispensation, the command 
to them, is, that they shall not become slaves to men. And 
this means as well that they shall not become slaves to their 
persons and material interests, as that they shall not he- 
come slaves to their theories and systems of righteousness. 
For, as obedience is slavery,'' the command forbids them to 
obey human leaders and theorizers, or to suffer such to lead 
them away from Christ, his teaching and laws. Christians 

(1^ I^v.xxv,42, 55. (3) Lev. xxv, 39-43; 47-5ft. 

(2) Ex. xxi, 6. (4) Ante, pp. 91, 155. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 299 

are forbidden to become slaves to human systems, either 
ethical or ecclesiastical; and as abolitionism is a human 
system of ethics, it is included in the prohibition. Chris- 
tians are to rem lin with God, and serve him, by observing 
liU sijstem of ethics, which is '' the righteousness of God," 
and is ''revealed in the Gospel."^ Those who do thus re- 
main with him in deed and in truth, acquire and preserve a 
holy indifference with regard to outward things — the things 
of rhis world. 

Would slaves that are converted to Christianity be en- 
joined and commanded by the Lord to remain in that con- 
dition, if shxvery is sinful? Does nofthe fact that he so 
commanded christian slaves, show that he regarded the in- 
stitution, as not sinful? 

Tlie apostle Paul, in his letter '' to the saints which are 
at Epliesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus," wrote thus: 

" Lit no man deceive you ivith vain words: for because of 
these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of 
disobedience. Be not therefore partakers with them. * 
^ ^^ Walk as the children of light. ^^ '-'^ ^ ^ H< g^e 
then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 
redeeming the time because the days are evil. Wherefore 
be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord 
(g^ * Hi * >K Submitting yourselves to one another in 
tlie f^ar of God. 

'' VVives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as 
unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, 
even as Christ is the head of the church : and he is the 
Savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject 
unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in 
everything. 

'' Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved 
the chui-ch, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify 
and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that 
he might present it to himself a glorious church not having 
spot or wi inkle, or any such thing; but that it might bo 
holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their 
wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth 
himself. For no man yet hateth his own flesh ; but nour- 
isheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church; for 
we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 

(1) Rom. i, 17. 



300 CONCLUSION OF THE 

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and 
shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 
This is a great mystery : but I speak concerning Christ and 
the church. Nevertheles^?, let every one of you in particular 
so love his wife even as IdmseJf ; and the wife see that she 
reverence her husband. 

^' Chihlren, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is 
right. Honor thy father and thy mother; which is the first 
commandment with a promise; that it may be well with 
thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth. 

" And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath : 
but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord. 

" Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters 
according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in single- 
ness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as 
men-pleasers ; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will 
of God from the heart ; with good will doing service, as to 
the Lord, and not to men : knowing that whatsoever good 
thing a man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, 
whether he be bond or free. 

" And, ye masters, do the same things nnto them, for- 
bearing^ threatening : knowing that your Master also is in 
heaven ; neither is there respect of persons vv'ith him."^ 

And in writing " to the saints and faitliful brethren in 
Christ, which are at Colosse," he wrote thus : 

"And .whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the 
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the 
Father by him. 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it 
is fit in the Lord. 

" Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against 
them. 

" Children, obey your parents in all things : for this is 
well pleasing unto the Lord. 

" Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they 
be discouraged. 

" Servants, obey in all things your masters according to 
the flesh ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in sin- 
gleness of heart, fearing God : and whatsoever ye do, do it 
heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that 

(1) Eph. V, 6-32; vi, 1-9. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 301 

of the Lord ye siiiU receive the reward of the inheritance : 
for ye serve the Lord Christ. But h© that doeth wrong, 
shall receive for I'le wrong he hath done; and there is no 
respect of person-. 

"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and 
equal ; knowing that ye also have a master in heaven."^ 

I quote together these two extracts from the inspired 
writings of the great apostle of the Gentiles, because they 
are very similar, and each of them embraces and combines 
together all the domestic relations of society. Those do- ■ 
mestic relations are the relations of husband and wife, par- 
ent and child, and master and servant. They have existed 
in human society from its origin ; or, at least, we have au- 
thentic information of their existence as far back as the 
days of Abraham, some three thousand and eight hundred 
years ago : and thej still exist in the society of at least 
one half of the human race. Abraham's day is the period 
at which the relation of master and slave is first noticed in 
the divine record; and the period at which the tvy^o epistles 
from which the above extracts are taken, were Avritten, is 
about the period at wliich the writing of books of inspira- 
tion ceased. Those two periods, then, are the two points 
of time at v/hich revelation first and last notices the rela- 
tion of master and slave. And the last is to continue and 
be in force during, and to the end, of the christian age or 
dispensation. At the first point or period, the Lord 
blessed Abraham, and gave him flocks, and herds, and silver, 
and gold, and men-servants, and maid- servants, and camels, 
and asses ;^ and he directed the slave Hagar, and her son 
Ishmael to be cast out and sent away, that he should not 
be heir with Isaac, the free son of Abraham.^ 

And it may not be inappropriate to remark here, before 
I proceed to comment upon those two extracts from Paul's 
writings, that the inspired record of the gifts of the Lord 
to Abraham " places human beings on a level with brute 
property ""* — with flocks and herds, and camels and asses. 
Yet I hope that brother Goodv/in, and all abolitionists of 
similar sensitiveness, will not be seriously injured by the 
" shock " it will give to his and their " moral feelings " to 
learn it, notwithstanding he may still " conclude " that it 

(1) Col. iii, 17-25 ; iv, 1, (3) Gen. xxi, 10-12 ; Gal. iv, 30. 

(2) Gen. xxiv, 35. (4) Ante, p. 79. 



302 CONCLUSION OF THE 

was very "unrighteous" in the Lord to so give, and to 
have it so recorded. And that though Paul, on these two 
different occasions, in writing by inspiration letters to the 
saints of two different churches, in different h)cnlities, 
"associated" the "divine institution of marriage " with 
the institution of shivery, and gave k>ws nnd (h'rections 
very similar, if not "parallel," as to the duties of wives to 
husbands, and of slaves to masters, as well as of the duties 
of husbands to wives, and of masters to slaves; yet I hope 
that brother Butler's "moral sense" has sufficiently 
strengthened itself, that he may be now "able to look 
steadily and calmly at it," without serious injury. As he 
was Avholly unable to bear it in June, 1862, 1 spared him 
then; but now I must declare "all the counsel of God:"^ 
I can shun it no longer. It is true that Paul, by inspira- 
tion of the Lord, gave laws as to the institutions of marriage 
and slavery in the two extracts above quoted, from which 
it seems that he "reasoned in effect, that the one is entitled 
to equal protection and respect with the other." But bro- 
ther Butler and abolitionists generally, have been, and are, 
correcting these sad errors into which Paul and the Lord, 
and even Peter too, as we shall see hereafter, fell. "This 
view," says brother Butler, "is so monstrous, so abhorrent, 
and so offensive to the moral sense, that I confess th;it I 
am not yet able to look steadily and calmly at it. The 
divine institution of marriage, paralleled and associated 
with the diabolical institution of chattel slavery, is a 
thought too revolting for calm consideration. But they 
are so presented by" Paul, "and the consideration is thus 
forced upon me.^'^ And he is "pegging away," abolition- 
like, to correct these monstrous errors of Paul, and of the 
Spirit of inspiration that spoke through him. 

But irony aside. Does not the fanaticism of abolitionism 
begin to be visible? Aye, to "appear to all men"?" 

Preceding and prefatory to the injunctions, as to the do- 
mestic relations, copied from the letter to the Ephesians, 
we are commanded to let no man deceive us tviih vain words; 
for because of our so doing, comes the wrath of God upon 
the children of disobedience. We become disobedient when 
wc follow the philosophy and vain deceit, (the vain woids 
in this passage,) of those who teach otherwise as to the 

(1) Acts XX. 27. (2) Ante, p. 69. (3) Tit. ii, 11. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 303 

domestic relations of society, than is taught and enjoined 
in the extracts quoted. Therefore, we should not be par- 
takers with them ^vho so teach, nor follow their teaching. 

Is it not time for us, as a nation and people, to reflect 
and consider, that because we have allowed ourselves to be 
deceived with the vain words of abolitionists, with their 
philosophy and vain deceit, as to the sin of slavery, the 
wrath of God is now upon us in this terrible civil war. 

Hence, we should cease being deceived by them, and 
walk as children of light, of the light which came down 
from heaven, and which is exhibited to us in the revelation 
of God in the Scriptures of truth ; and not walk in the 
darkness of abolition theories. We should "have no fel- 
lowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather 
reprove them,"^ as I am humbly trying to do. We should 
see then, and take heed, "that we walk circumspectly, not 
as fools, [fanatics] but as wise, redeeming the time, because 
the days are" truly and lamentably "evil." For these rea- 
sons we should not be unwise, foolish or fanatic, but should 
go to work in good faith, to understand what the will of the 
Lord is, upon this question of the sinfulness of an institu- 
tion that has existed among us as a people ever since we 
became a people ; and submit ourselves to one another in 
the fear of God, by using the light he has given us in his 
revelation, to ascertain his will, and then following and 
obeying that light, let it lead where it may. 

The apostle, having given us these directions, and this 
warninor ac];ainst hQm^ deceived with the vain words of 
theorizers establishing their own human systems of right- 
eousness, they being themselves ignorant of the righteous- 
ness of God on the subject;^ or, if not ignorant, trying, 
like the serpent in Eden, to lead us away from the right- 
eousness of God, goes on to direct us as to our duty in 
these three domestic relations of human society — the rela- 
tions of husband and w^ife, parent and child, and master and 
slave. He does not tell us to rip up, veto, or abolish any 
of these relations, or that we must abolish the last relation, 
though the doing of it produce civil war, internecine strife, 
anarchy, a reign of terror, the overthrow of the best gov- 
ernment God ever gave to man, and the destruction of our 
own liberties, and the establishment of military despotism; 

(1) Eph. V, 11, (2) Eom. X, 3. 



304 CONCLUSION OP THE 

all of which our modern abolition preachers, by toord or 
action, directly or indirectly, tell us to do. 

But instead of that, wives are commanded to submit 
themselves unto their own husbands as unto the Lord ; for, 
in obeying this injunction, they obey the Lord; and in sub- 
mitting to obey it, they submit to the Lord ; for he gave 
the injunction through his inspired apostle. They are told 
ii^ the letter to the Colossians, that to do so, is " fit in the 
jjord." But many of these infidel " humanitarians " teach 
that man is not the head of the woman, as Christ is of the 
church, like Paul taught, but they have set up their own 
righteousness, that is to say, a " woman's rights " system, 
teaching that women should not be in subjection to their 
" husbands, as unto the Lord," " as it is fit in the Lord " 
that they should be. All of whom, so teaching, are aboli- 
tionists, and teach the same as to the relation of master 
and slave, that they teach as to the relation of husband and 
wife. Being infidel as to one regulation of the Lord, no 
wonder that they are infidel as to another — yes, as to all 
regulations of the Lord — which regulations of the Lord 
constitute the righteousness of God for us to govern our- 
selves by, and to conform our conduct to. 

So the righteousness of God, as Avritten out by Paul in 
the extracts I am considering, written under the direction, 
and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, directs 
slaves to be obedient to them that are their masters accord- 
ing to the flesh, that is, according to the regulations of the 
kingdoms of this world, which includes tlie regulations of 
the slave States of the heretofore Union of this our hereto- 
fore happy country : and to be obedient to them with fear 
and trembling, in singleness of heart, " as unto Christ ; not 
with eye-service, as men-pleasers, [that is, as abolition- 
pleasers] but as the servants of Christ, doing the [this] 
will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as 
to the Lord, and not to men ; knowing that whatsoever good 
thing a man doeth, [and obeying these injunctions is doing 
a good thing] the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether 
he be bond or free ;" and knowing also, that when they so 
act, and do in word and deed, they do it *' in the name," 
under the direction, and by the authority of the Lord, thus 
giving thanks to God and the Father, by thus obeying the 
Lord's directions and injunctions to them. And knowing 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 305 

that of the Lord they shall receive the reward of the in- 
heritance, because they serve the Lord Jesus Christ in thus 
doing; and that he that doeth wrong by disobeying these 
directions of the Lord, shall receive for the wrong he hath 
done ; and that there is no respect of persons with him, 
in settling up these matters, even though one is an aboli- 
tionist, and the other is a " contraband " deceived and en- 
ticed away by the abolitionist, by his " vain words." 

Children are also commanded to obey their parents in all 
things : for this is right. Honor thy father and thy mother, 
is the first commandment that the Lord gave with a prom- 
ise ; which promJse was, that it may be well with them, and 
that they may live long in the earth. Here the command 
is repeated, so there can be no doubt that this command of 
the Decalogue is continued in force, and was not nailed to 
the Cross by the Lord. 

We have now seen, and I have examined, what the Lord 
commanded the subordinates in these three domestic rela- 
tions; and we see that wives, children and slaves, are placed 
by the Lord, in his christian code, in subordinate positions, 
in those relations, and commanded as to what their duty is 
in those positions. And there is seen to be a similarity be- 
tween the duties of Vv-ives and slaves ; but that the wife oc- 
cupies the higher, and the nearer, and the dearer position, 
is also very evident. Wives are only to submit themselves 
to their husbands; but slaves are not only to be obedient 
to their masters in all things, but they are to serve their 
masters, not with pretended eye-service, but with single- 
ness of lieart, in good faith, as if they were doing the ser- 
vice to- the Lord himself, and not to men. For, in so doing, 
they " serve the Lord Jesus Christ." 

The duties of wife and servant, and their respective po- 
sitions in the domestic relations of society, are paralleled 
and associated together here, by the inspired writer ; and 
in bringing to the attention of the reader the whole counsel 
of God upon the subject I am examining, I am compelled to 
thus present them, notwithstanding the doing so may throw 
my abolition friends and brethren into convulsions; but I 
Jiope if it does, it will produce no serious injury either to the 
physical, mental, or moral powers and faculties of my abo- 
lition friends and quondam brethren. 



306 CONCLUSION OF THE 

I will now look at those who stand upon the other side 
in these three domestic relations of human society. 

Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the 
church. How did he love the church ? Why, he loved it 
well enough to give himself for it. That is the kind of 
love that husbands are commanded to have for their wives; 
love enough to give themselves for their wives. He that 
loves his wife loves himself. No man, let him be as bad as 
he mny, ever yet hated his own flesh, bat nourished it and 
cherished it, as the Lord nourishes and cherishes the church. 
The man and his wife are one flesh by the divine law ; and 
every christian in jyarticular is commanded to so love his 
wife even as he loves himself, and the wife is commanded 
to reverence her husband, because every christian and every 
christian church reverences the Loi'd and all his command- 
ments, including these commandments as to the domestic 
relations of society. 

Fathers are not to provoke their children to wrath. 

Masters are commanded to do the same things to their 
slaves, that is, as Mr. Wesley says in his note, '' act towards 
them from the same principle," the principles just inculcated 
for the slave to act from to the master; which principles 
are, that the master act in good faith from the heart, as to 
the Lord; that he give his slave that which is just and 
equal between them in their respective positions in the re- 
lation they hold to each other; knowing that he also has a 
Master in heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom he is 
amenable as a slave, as his slave is amenable to him : and 
that the measure he metes to his slave, his Master the Lord, 
will measure to him again;' which is impressively taught by 
the Lord himself, in the parable recorded in Matthew xviii, 
28-85. 

This is the Lord's code as to the domestic relations, es- 
tablished for the christian kingdom, and now in force 
therein; and it is to continue in force during the christian 
dispensation. When a man occupies the position of hus- 
band, father, and master, filling one position in each of the 
three relations, and he, his wife, children and slaves, all 
live in the strict observance of these laws, a domestic circle 
exists similar to that of Abraham, the father of the f.iithful. 
Brother Butler and abolitionists truly say that marriage 

(1) Matt, vii, 2. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. -307 

is a divine ordinance, and that the relation of husband and 
wife is a holy relation. Would the Lord, in giving laws to 
govern that holy relation, connect witli them la^YS to govern 
a sinful institution, a diabolical institution, a modern 
Moloch? Let abolitionists "stop and think" upon this, 
" ere they farther go." 

Mnniage is a divine ordinance, while slavery is a human 
institution. The one is commanded of God; the other is 
neither commanded nor prohibited. Hence, to enter into 
the marrinjre relation is doing rigliteousness, because it is 
commanded; but to become a slaveholder is neither doing 
righteousness nor committing sin, because it is neither com- 
manded nor forbidden; and is like thousaiids of other hu- 
mnn actions, neither righteous nor sinful — but indifferent. 
But when a man enters the relation of master and slave, 
then the commands of God reach him, and he does right- 
eousness or commits sin according as he demeans himself. 
On the other hand, should a person who is in the relation, 
be properly and lawfully rid of it, then the commands of 
God pertaining to him in the relation no longer apply to 
him, and he is not bound by them. Those who do not stand 
in the relation of master and slave have none of the re- 
sponsibilities of the relation resting upon them; and are 
not bound by the laws of the Lord relating to it. The 
laws of the Lord relating to the institution only apply to, 
and are only obligatory upon, those who hold the relation 
of master or slave to some other human being. Hence, 
there being no law as to others who do not hold that rela- 
tion, there can be no transgression by them, unless by im- 
pertinent interference, they make themselves busy-bodies 
in other men's matters, when they become accountable — 
not for "the sin of slavery" — but for being busy-bodies.^ 
By the laws of the Lord's kingdom, every one is accounta- 
ble for his own conduct, and his own actions; and not for 
the conduct and actions of others. "So then every one 
shall give an account of himself to God ;"2 and not of other 
people. But more of this hereafter. 

The apostle Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, wrote 
thus : 

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their 
own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God 

(1) 1 Pet. iv, 15; 2 Thes. iii, 11 ; 1 Tim. v, 13, (2) Rom. xiv, 12. 



308 CONCLUSION OF THE 

and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have 
believing masters, let them not despise them, because they 
are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are 
fiiithful (or believers) and beloved, partakers of [who re- 
ceive] the benefit. Tltese things teach and exhort. If any 
man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, 
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doc- 
trine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing 
nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, 
whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil-surmisings, per- 
verse disputings of men of corrupt minds, [wholly corrupt, 
in mind], and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain i ; 
godliness : from such withdraw thyself.^ 

I note first, that the persons spoken of here, were slaves 
under the yoke of Roman bondage — a much worse syst:;m 
of slavery than any that ever existed in any State of Uiis 
Union. They were commanded to count their masters 
worthy of all honor. This is what Paul taught in his let- 
ter to the Romans: "Render tlierefore to all their ilacs: 
tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom fo whom custom: 
fear to whom fear; honor to 'whom honor J''^ Slaves are 
here commanded to count their masters worthy of all honor. 
Honor, then, by the law of the Lord, is due the mast:;- 
from the slave; and the slave, in rendering it, renders only 
what is due the master. And this is enjoined by Paul that 
the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed, or 
defamed, as it reads in the New Translation. The doctrine 
of God, then, is, that slaves render to their masters all 
honor as their due; and when christian slaves fail to do so, 
of their own motion, or by advice of abolitionists, they 
thereby give occasion for the name and doctrine of God to 
be defamed or blasphemed. And christian slaves that have 
believing masters, that is, christian masters, are commanded 
to not despise them because they are brethren in Christ ; 
but that they serve them the more, because they are be- 
lievers and beloved who receive the lienefit of their services 
and labor. 

And these things Paul enjoined it upon his beloved Tim- 
othy to teach and exhort. This is the divine command in 
the premises. Those who so teach and so exhort, do right- 
eousness, because they do the command of God. Those 

(1) 1 Tim, vi, 1-5. (2) Rom. xiii, T. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 309 

teachers who fail to so teach, are guilty of unrighteousness, 
which is failing to do the commands of God ; and being 
guilty of unrighteousness, they sin, for all unrighteousness 
is sin.^ And those teachers who teach the contrary of 
what Paul here enjoined Timothy to teach and exhort, 
transgress the law, and thereby sin.^ And Paul went on 
immediately, after enjoining Timothy to so teach and ex- 
hort, to describe this last named class, and " the effects and 
consequences " of their teaching ; which description is an 
exact one of the preachers and teachers of abolitionism, 
and of the effects and consequences of their work, as I will 
now shoAv. 

1. " If any man teach otherwise." Abolitionists do 
teach otherwise. ISo far the description fits. 

2. If they " consent not to wholesome words." Aboli- 
tion teachers do not consent lo wholesome words, as what 
they have said in the preceding pages abundantly shows. 
I will not specify in detail, but only make general reference 
to the many instances where I have had to combat their 
improper use of words in the preceding pages. In this 
particular, they fit the description. 

3. If they do not consent to "the w^ords of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to god- 
liness" — God-like-ness. The words of the Lord Jesus 
Christ upon the subject of the duties of slaves to their 
masters, that being the subject upon which Paul was teach- 
ing here, I have referred to in the preceding pages, which 
the reader will please to look back to and examine.^ These 
are the words of our blessed Lord as to the relation, rights 
and duties of masters and slaves. And the Lord said that 
the kingdom of heaven, or God's government, was like 
them. Hence, this doctrine he taught is godliness or God- 
like-ness on the subject. The {Savior was God manifest in 
the flesh.'* His conduct while here, was godliness, God- 
like-ness, or acting God-like. He took upon him the form 
of a slave, and was made in the likeness of men : and being 
found in fiishion as a man, he humbled himself, and became 
obedient, that is, he became a slave, for obedience is slavery. 
He became obedient unto death, the Roman system of 
slavery requiring the slaves to obey their masters even unto 
death ; and the Lord became obedient unto death, even to 

d) IJohnv, IV. (2) lJohniii,4. ^3) Ante, pp. 291-295. (i) 1 Tim. iii, 16. 

I 



310 



CONCLUSION OF THE 



tlie death of the Cross, which mode of death, bv the Roman 
law, could be inflicted only on slaves and ^nalefactors. 
This was the "mind" that was in Christ, and that chris- 
tians are commanded to have in them, as is evident from 
the whole passage cited in the foot-note.' And I have also 
noted in the preceding pages (including this passage that I 
am now considering, and what Paul said to Titus,^ and what 
the apostle Peter said,^ both of which will be hereafter 
noticed,) what the inspired apostles of the Lord taught on 
the subject by his commands; all of which are wholesome" 
or healthy words, even the words of the Lord Jesus through 
or by his apostles who had plenary power from him to bind 
and loose on the subject; and they teach the doctrine which 
IS acjcording to godliness. Abolitionists do not consent to 
these words, nor to this doctrine; neither to the words 
actually used by the Lord himself, and the doctrine he 
taught, nor to the words used by the apostles, and the doc- 
trine they taught. They repudiate the whole of it, and 
make unrelenting war upon it, calling it all tne hard names 
they can think of or invent— and they have great inventive 
powers in detraction and defamation. 

4. The description goes on to say that those who teach 
otherwise, and do not consent to those words, and to this 
doctrine, are "proud, knowing nothing; but are dotin<^ 
about questions and strifes of words." Are not abolition- 
ists proud, puffed up, with their super-piety? This book ' 
shows how "vain in their imaginations'''^ reasonings, as it 
reads in the New Translation, they are, to try to make out 
and sustain their theory by their reasoning, independerjt of 
the knowledge of God upon the subject. They " walk in 
the vanity of their raind,"^ that is, have their minds lifted 
up and exalted with the vain notions of their wisdom, 
learning, and smartness, "above and before" the wisdom 
that IS ^ from above, "and cometh down from the Father of 
lights;"*^ the result of which really is, that thereby their 
"understanding" becomes "darkened" and "alienated 
from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, 
because of the blindness of their heart."' Yet "they 
speak great swelling words of vanity," and thereby "allure 
through the lusts of the flesh [for p^ower, place, and popa- 

li^^ ^!'''-.."'^-^- U^ Horn, i, 21. (7) Kph. iv. 18. 

f2) 'iit.ii, 9 10. (5) Eph. iv. 17, 18. ^ P' • »v, IH. 

(3; IPet. 11,13-25; iii,l-T. (G) James i, 17 



DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 311 

larity], tliroucrh much wantonness [as to the public welfare, 
either of church or State,] those that were clean escaped 
from thein who live in error."^ And Paul says, in the 
passage that I am considering, that, because they do as 
there (described, which I have shown that abolitionists do, 
they are proud, puffed up, and high-minded, but really 
JcTioio 7iotliing^ because they reject the knowledge of God, 
will not consent to the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus 
Christ ar.d his doctrine, and attempt, by their own reason- 
ing, to make a better system. Paul denounces those who 
do so as proud and knowin^j nothing; abolition preachers 
and teachars do so: therefore, abolition preachers and 
teachers are proud and know nothing; that is, proud and 
ignorant of the true knowledge of God on the subject. 
And more than that, Paul says that they dote upon, love, 
and liave excessive fondness for questions and strifes of 
words. Wordy strife is but the way of doing what the 
abolition leaders and founders of the sect commanded them 
to do long ago; that is, agitate! agitate!! agitate! !! which, 
being translated into the lioosier vernacuhir, is, keep up a 
fuss! keep up a fuss ! ! keep up a fuss! ! ! which they have 
assiduously done from the birth of their sect, aed still are 
doing, with more energy, if possible, than ever. 

5. Tlie description further says, that of or from this 
doting about questions and strifes of words of those men, 
come " envy, strife, railings, evil-surmisings, perverse dis- 
putings of inen of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth." 
How exactly this fits and describes "the effects and conse- 
quences" of abolitionism ! Of it has come envy; of it has 
come strife, even to the strife of a terrible and gigantic civil 
war nov/ raging in our unhappy country. Abolitionism 
railed all the time, from the time it was born till now, and 
is now railing at everything and every body that will not 
worship at its shrine; evil surmizing has been its daily work 
all its life, and still is; and perverse disputings of men of 
corrupt mind and wholly destitute of the truth of God upon 
the subject of slavery, such as now exists in our unhappy 
country, caps the climax of its wickedness. 

This is an inspired description cf abolition preachers and 
teachers, and of the effects an<l consequences of abolition- 
ism. The Spirit that spoke through Paul saw the picture 

(1) 2 Pet. ii, 18. 



312 CONCLUSION OF THE 

as it exists and has existed for thirty years, and described it 
accurately. If any think that I am speaking too strongly, 
let them look back and see that Paul was speaking of those 
who teach otherwise than he there enjoined upon Timothy 
to teach ; and then reflect that abolitioiiists do teach other- 
wise, and will not consent to the wholesome words of the 
Lord, and to the doctrine that is according to godliness 
upon this subject, and they will see clearly that Paul was 
speaking of, and denouncing, abolition preachers and aboli- 
tionism. 

6. And Paul closes with this command to Timothy : 
''From such withdraw thyself" Hence, christians are here 
commanded to withdraw from, or excommunicate — not abo- 
litionists who entertain their notions as private opinions of 
their own, and keep them as such — but those who teach 
abolitionism, which is teaching otherwise than as Paul en- 
joined it upon Timothy to teach, and who will not consent 
to the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the 
subject, and the doctrine which is according to godliness, 
as taught by the Lord and his apostles. The command of 
the Lord, through the apostle Paul, is, that such teachers be 
excommunicated And how much better it would have 
been for Christianity and for our country, if this command 
of the Lord had been faithfully obeyed from the birth of 
abolitionism until now. 

Thus obeying this command, would have also obeyed an- 
other command given by the Lord, through the same apos- 
tle, in his letter to Titus. In that letter, he said that 
bishops of churches should hold fiist the faithful word as 
they had been taught, that they might be able, hy sound 
doctrine^hoih. to exhort the christians to faithfully discharge 
their duties, v/hich would of course include their duties as 
to the domestic relations of society, and to convince or con- 
fute the gain-sayers. For, said he, there are many unruly 
and vain talkers and deceivers, tvhose mouths must he stopped, 
who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they 
ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. Wherefore rebuke them 
sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. ^ 
. These abolition teachers are unruly and vain talkers, as 
I have shown above. They reject the word of the Lord, 
and the doctrine which is according to godliness. They 

0) Tit. j, 9-13. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 313 

subvert, not only whole houses, but whole communities, 
teaching things which they ought not ; and they have done, 
and are now doing, a world of mischief. Their mouths 
must be stopped : first by confuting their gainsaying, and 
rebuking them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. 
My humble part in this work I am now trying to perform. 
And, secondl}^ if they do not stand reproved and reform, 
and abandon their unruly course, then, by excommunicating 
them — withdrawing from them — after a first and second 
admonition. That will stop their mouths in christian con- 
gregations, and as chrisHan teachers. If they still persist 
in their unruly talk after having been expelled from the 
christian congregation — the assembly of the saints, in 
which place God is greatly feared,^ and as a necessary con- 
sequence, his commands strictly obeyed — Christianity will 
not be am.enable for it; for they will then stand as disowned 
apostates. This is the Lord's method of stopping the 
mouths of unruly, vain talkers and deceivers, as prescribed 
in his laws.^ If bishops of churches would hold fast the 
faithful word, and by sound doctrine confute these abolition 
gainsayers ; and if christian congregations would obey the 
divine injunction to withdraw from the unruly and vain 
talkers and deceivers that persisted in their course of 
teaching otherwise than Paul commanded Timothy to teach, 
after having been rebuked sharply for it, they would but obey 
the Lord, and would be blessed by him for their obedience- 
And then neither individual christians, nor whole houses, 
much less whole communities, would be subverted by their 
so teaching things which they ought not to teach, and which 
I have shown that they ought not to teach. 

I have now proved the fourth proposition that I proposed 
to discuss with brother Boggs.^ I have shown that these 
abolition preachers, and the teachers of abolitionism in the 
.pulpit and through the press, are " heretical, schismatical 
and anti-christian." They reject the wholesome words of 
the Lord, and his doctrine. That position, which they as- 
sume and hold, is anti-Christ, or against Christ; for and is 
against. " Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in 
the doctrine of Christy hath not God. He that abideth in 

(1) Ps. Ixxxix, 7. 

(2) Tlie abolition method of doing it, as exemplified by the present abolition adminis- 
tration of the general government, is by illegal military arrests, baetileB, &c. 

(3) Ante, p. 25. 

21 



8X4 CONCLUSION Of THE 

the doctrine of Christ, he ijath both the Father and the 
Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doc- 
trine [of Christ], receive him not into your houae, neither 
bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed, is 
partaker of his evil deeda/'' These teachers of aljolition- 
ism, in the language of brother Boggs, "persistently re- 
fuse " to stand rebuked, and to reform and becoate sound 
in the faith. But instead of that, they labor hard to make 
an abolition sect in the body of christians. Hence, they 
are heretical and schismatical; for heresy is simply making 
a sect; and schism, in Christianity, is but rending the 
church, the body of Christ. And the Lord commanded 
thus: '* A factioniat, after a first and second admonition, 
reject; knowing that such a person is pt^rver/ed, and «/w», 
being self-condemned."^ Christian churches should there- 
fore rid tbemselveg of those abolition teachers who, either 
in the pulpit or through the press, " teach otherwise, and 
will not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine that is accordijig to 
godliness;" and who, after being "lebuked sharply that 
they may be sound in the faith," "persistently" continue 
to be vain talkers and deceivers, by rejecting them as fac- 
tio^iists, after a first and second admonition. By so doing, 
they will be *' walking in the fear of the Lord, and tlie ad- 
monition or instruction of the Holy Spirit, and will be 
multiplied"" exceediiigly, in this our day, when nearly all 
the other Protestant denominati(^nfs of christians have be- 
come simply propagandists of abolitionism. Go to their 
churches and you hear little said about the Lord and hia 
kingdom, but Uiuch about abolitioniani and " the kingdoms 
of this world," m our now divided, distracted and unhappy 
country. They " mind earthly things," and hence are 
** the enemies of the Cross of Christ."^ But, on the otljer 
hand, if they allovir those teachers to continue their nefa- 
rious work, teaching '' otherwise," the christian body will 
go the way of all the other professedly christian denomina- 
tions, and be swallowed up, body and tsoul, in abolitionism : 
and but add another to the now numerous pr.>geny ol the; 
Mother of Harlots. From which fate may the good Loid 
deliver ua. 

I will now proceed to notice the two other passages in 

0) 2Jolm8-n. (3> Acts ix, 31, NewTrtiualutiou. 

(2) Til. iii, 10, 11, MewTrajJslfltiott- (4) PUil. iii, 18, 19. 



DISCUSSION OF SL AVERT. 815 

the apostolic writings, relating to slavery, that I have not 
yet noticed. 

Paul, in writing to Titus, commands him to speak the 
ildngs that become sound doctrine. And among the things 
following that become sound doctrine, that Paul commanded 
Titus to teach, was this: "Exhort servants to be subject to 
their own masters, and in all things to be careful to please, 
not answering again, not secretly stealing, but showing all 
good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our 
iSavior in all things.''^ It is sound doctrine to so teach the 
slaves; and for the slaves to obey the teaching, is to adorn 
the doctrjne of God our Savior. Abolition teachers diso- 
bey the command to so teach, and teach " otherwise," that 
the slaves should not be subject to their own masters, and 
should not in all things be careful to please them ; but to 
steal away from them whenever they can, and to show no 
good faith towards them. Thus disobeying the plain com- 
mand of God, they sin. 

The apostle Peter, in writing to the christians scattered 
throughout Pontus, Galatia, Capnadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 
wrote thus : 

*' Ye are a chosen generation [race], a royal priesthood, 
a holy nation, a peculiar [purchased] people; that ye should 
show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of 
darkness into his marvellous light ; which [who] in time 
past were not a people, but are now the people of God: 
which [who] had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained 
mercy. Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and 
pilgrims, abstain from fleshy lusts, which war against the 
soul ; having your conversation [behavior] honest among 
the Gentiles: that whereas [wherein] they speak against 
you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which 
they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. 
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's 
sake: whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto gov- 
ernors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punish- 
ment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well. 
For so is the will of .God, that with well doing ye may put 
to silence the ignorance of foolish men : as free, yet not 
using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the 
servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. 

(1) Tit. ii, 9, 10, New Translation. 



316 CONCLUSION OF THE 

Fear God. Honor the king. Servants, be subject to your 
masters with all fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but 
also to the frovrard. For this is thank- worthy, if a man 
for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrong- 
fully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffetted for 
your faults, ye shall take it patiently ? but if, when ye do 
well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is accepta- 
ble with God. For even hereunto were ye called : because 
Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye 
should follow his steps : who did no sin, neither was guile 
found in his mouth : who, when he was reviled, reviled not 
again ; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed 
himself to him that judgeth righteously: who in his own 
self bear our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, be- 
ing dead to sins, should live unto righteousness : by whose 
stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray: 
but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of 
your souls. 

" Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own hus- 
bands ; that, if any obey not the word, they also may with- 
out the word be won by the conversation [behavior, deport- 
ment] of the wives; while they behold your chaste behavior 
coupled with fear : whose adorning let it not be that out- 
ward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, 
or of putting on apparel ; but let it be the hidden man of 
the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even th« orna- 
ment of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of 
God of great price. For after this manner in the old time 
holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, 
being in subjection unto their own husbands : even as Sarah 
obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye 
are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any 
amazement. 

** Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to 
knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker 
vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace [favor] of 
life ; that your prayers be not hindered."^ 

There can be no doubt of the binding obligation of this 
teaching upon us ; for the Lord gave Peter the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven, and said that whatsoever he bound on 
earth should be bound in heaven.^ 

(1) 1 Pet. ii, 9-25 ; iij, T^. (2) Matt, ivi, 19. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 31T 

I have quoted thus much from Peter's first letter, that I 
might lay it all before the reader as it stands in the Scrip- 
tures. A good portion of it applies to the next general 
head of which I shall treat, which is, the duty of christians 
in and to civil governments, or the kingdoms of this world. 
Upon that branch of the extract, I will now only note 
briefly, that christians are a chosen, purchased nation, 
which before Peter wrote had not been a people, but were 
then, when he wrote, a people. Their mission in this world 
is to show forth the praises, as it reads in the common ver- 
sion, but, as it reads in the New Translation, to declare the 
perfections of the Lord, who called them from the darkness 
in which man is without the knowledge of God, into the 
marvellous light of the Lord's revelations to our race. 
They are simply sojourners and pilgrims or travelers in this 
world, and in thp kingdoms of this world. Here they 
" have no continuing city."^ They are commanded to sub- 
mit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake — not 
for their own sakes. The king or civil government is put 
down as an ordinance of man. It is to be submitted to as 
such, and submitted to for the Lord's sake, that his king- 
dom, government, and doctrine be not blasphemed or de- 
famed in the kingdoms of this world. It is similar to a 
citizen or subject of one civil government residing in an- 
other. He submits to every ordinance of the government 
in which he resides for the sake of his government at 
home, that it be not scandalized or defamed by his conducts 

All men are to be honored or respected, but the brother- 
hood are to be loved. This is one proof of what I stateiJ 
in my debate with brother Wiley, that the Lord has differ- 
ent laws for the conduct of christians, as to those that are 
christians, and as to those that are not.^ 

Speaking of the duties of christians as to the ordinances 
of man, Peter speaks of the duties of the servants to their 
masters. This shows that the institution of slavery is an 
ordinance of man ; and it is also to be submitted to for the 
Lord's sake. Abolitionists take issue with Peter, and say 
that it should not be submitted to. As Peter spoke for the 
Lord, and had authority from him to bind on earth, aboli- 
tionists, by taking issue with Peter, take issue with the 
Lord, and thus are against Christ, or ajiii- christism. Ser- 

0.) Ueb. xiii, U.. (2) Ante^ p 239.. 



318 CONCLUSION OF THE 

vants are commanded to be subject not only to good and 
gentle masters, but also to the froward, peevish, ungove-na- 
ble, perverse masters; because it is thank-worthy if a man 
for conscience towards God, rather than disobey his com- 
mands and laws, endure grief suffering wrongfully. And 
the example of Christ's conduct and suffering is cited by 
Peter, to show the propriety of the commands he gave the 
servants. Mr. Wesley, in his note on verses 22 and 23, 
says : " In all these instances the example of Christ is pe- 
culiarly adapted to the state of servants." The Lord, in 
the condition of a servant, as in every other condition, was 

PERFECT. 

*'In like manner," as translated by Mr. Wesley, and in 
the New Translation, wives are commanded to be in sub- 
jection to their own husbands; for it was so "in the old 
time," even as far back as Sarah's and Abraham's day. 
They had no infidel or unfaithful that is disobedient, aboli- 
tion or women's rights theories, and systems of righteous- 
ness, in either Abraham's or Peter's day, nor for nearly 
eighteen centuries afterwards. Peter commanded that 
wives be in subjection to their husbands in like manner, as 
servants were just before commanded by him to be subject 
to their masters. Hence, he not only fell into the grievous 
error that Paul did in paralleling, and associating the insti- 
tutions of marriage and slavery, but he commanded that 
the wife be subject to the husband, as the servant to the 
master. 

I have now noticed all the passages in the New Testa- 
ment that treat of the institution of slavery, except the 
letter to Philemon, which is sufficiently noticed in the de- 
bates. They show that the Lord did not preach deliverance 
to the captives in the sense of abolitionism, that is, he did 
not preach freedom to the slaves. Both brother Butler and 
brother Wiley failed to show that he did preach so, though 
repeatedly requested to do so. On the contrary, the Scrip- 
tures I have noticed, show that ho preached that the slaves 
should remain in the condition they were, and serve their 
masters. The deliverance to the captives that the Lord 
was anointed to preach, and that he actually did preach, 
was deliverance from mental and moral captivity; deliver- 
ance from sin, and death, and the grave ; deliverance from 
the snare of the devil, who had taken the world of mankind 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 319 

captive at his will. The freedom that the Lord preached, 
was freedom from sin and all its consequences; from death, 
hell, and the grave; and not freedom from the institution 
of slavery, an ordinance of man existing in the kingdoms 
of this world. His command was to submit to every ordi- 
nance of man, including that ordinance, for his sake. 

As I did not have space to reply fully to brother Wiley's 
sixth argument, at pages 217 and 218, I will do so now. 
He took the ground that the passage quoted there, clearly 
established the general principle, " that as we treat the 
Lord's disciple, so we treat him." Upon that I took issue, 
anie^ p. 224. 

This shows how easily we are led astray when we under- 
take to draw general rules from particular transactions. 
Here the Lord blest and rewarded those on his right hand, 
because, in doing certain specified things to his disciples, 
he accounted them 'as having been done to himself; and he 
punished those on his left hand, because, in failing to do 
those same specified things that the righteous had done to 
his disciples, he accounted them as having failed to do them 
to him. From this brother Wiley drew the general propo- 
sition, and asserted it to be true, as to everything else, that 
might be done or not done to a disciple, as being done or 
not done to the Lord. That is, that because at the final 
account, the Lord will impute as having been done or not* 
done to himself^ what we may have done or not have done 
to his disoiples^ as to six things, that is, as to giving his dis- 
ciples food, drink, lodging, and apparel, and as to visiting 
them in sickness, and in prison, that he will impute every 
thing else also, as having been done or not done to hiin^ 
which we shall have done or not have done to his disciples; 
and as brother Wiley applied it, if a master of a christian 
slave shall have sold him, it will be imputed that he sold 
the Lord ! 

I gave one instance at page 239, " that worshipping the 
Lord's disciple is not worshipping him," to show that bro- 
ther Wiley's general rule is not general. One exception is 
enough to show that his general deduction is untrue, and 
breaks all its force. I will, however, now give a few others, 
and could give more. Teaching a disciple, is not teaching 
the Lord. Obeying a disciple's theory, system, or dogma, 
is not obeying the Lord. Working for a disciple for 



■^^^ CONCLUSION OF THE 



wages, is not working for the Lord for wages. And hirin,, 

for y^f V:t '"" y«"' '« -'.'^'-g 'h« Lord to I'rf 
tor you By the same parity of reasoning, may we not 
say, that notwithstanding that by the laws of a^Stlte we 
own a disciple as a slave, we do not own the Lord as a 
slave' and that .elling that slave is not soiling The LoTd ' 
If one s owmng a disciple by the laws of a State makes 
him the owner of the Lord by imputation, will TotTdis! 

But let us get closer up. The charge was- I was in 
prison and ye came not unto me. The^lame was for not 
coming to him in prison. According to abolitionism the 
blame IS, because they did not releafe him from pr^on- 
tTJT~^''^K^J'' fetters-open his prison doorT The 
Lord, however, did not blame those on his left hand, for not 

Th T^J"^'' ^° •"■ ^'^ '^T^'"'- ^'''^^ «'^« not' the sn 
in IV ' f ^^""''g to him-not visiting him in the 

condition in which he was;-notfor not changing That con! 
dition and taking him out of it. And this if in strict ac 

IS abundantly shown m the preceding pages. Accord no. 
to aboLtion teaching and conduct, the "Lfrd shtldhavf 
said to those on his left hand ; I 'was in prison, and the 
• Golden Rule requiring you to do as you would be done bv 
required that you should have disregarded the laws and of-' 
dinances of man by which I was imprisoned, and " aghatd " 
action upon a "higher law" till you got up a party suffi 
ciently powerful to tear down tl^ jafl and^ take ie out" 

woS aV;f '" '''' -fWoodshed^evastation, fire and 
swo d , and because you di.! not do it, depart, &c. 

lliis shows the impropriety and danger of going to rea 

Honing, and drawing deductions and inferenfe fn a.cer 

taining what ,s sinful or righteous, instead of ook " to the 

direct commands of the Lord upon the particular tubject 

I have shown the many commands of the Lord to the mas 

ter and slave; and yet brother Wiley, instead of lo k , to' 

them ascertain the Lord's will in the premises reaso^ied 

Sstry^rSur' ''' «^'^'" H"'e,.c.rto"^7ru^ 

istr^v"'!;!!!'^"'!'^ t^^^y*"" a^-l a half of the Lord's min- 
istry, he ministered only to the moral, mental and physical 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 321 

wants of the people. He never ministered, in any way, to 
their political wants, nor as to their condition in life, as to 
bond or free, high or low, rich or poor. This any one can 
fully and clearly see, who will carefully read the four Gospels. 

What more I have to say under brother Wiley's fifth 
head, will properly come up under the general head I shall 
next consider — the duty of christians in the civil govern- 
ment. 

I have now fully discussed the proposition, Slavery is sin- 
ful. Brethren Wiley and Butler both undertook to sustain 
and prove the proposition by the good word of the Lord. 
They both failed, and both desisted from the further prose- 
cution of the discussion, midway of it. I ask the reader's 
careful attention to, and consideration of, what has been 
said in the preceding pages ; and that they " search the 
Scriptures daily whether these things are so,"^ as the noble 
Bereans did. We are all equally interested in ascertaining 
and knowing what the truth is on this now momentous and 
absorbing question, in our now divided, distracted, and un- 
happy country. It will do none of us any harm to care- 
fully and calmly look at and consider what is said in the 
inspired volume, the only true source of light and knowl- 
edge, on this now terrible question. It is time for us all to 
carefully re-examine the ground we occupy, and see whether 
or not we are, or have been in error. We should do this 
disnassionately ; we should not let our party feelings, either 
religious or political, sway us from so doing ; but, as far as 
it is possible for human nature to do, we should approach 
the careful and honest examination of God's word upon 
the subject, as if we had no opinions of our own, in good 
faith resolving to follow God's truth, let it lead wherever it 
may. If we do that, we are certain to come to the light ; 
for ''he that doeth [obeys or follows] truth cometh to the 
light."^ God has communicated his knowledge to us : it is 
our duty to examine, ascertain, and acquire it. Let us do 
so, in good faith, on this subject, at this time. If we do, 
our errors may be ascertained, and our ways amended, in 
time to yet save our country and people from utter ruin 
and destruction. But, if we do not, and are wrong in the 
assumption that slavery is sinful, as I think I have abund- 
antly shown that we are, and still persist on that false as- 

(1) Acts xvii, 11. (2; John iii, 21. 



"-' CONCLUSION OF TUE 



sumption, to prosecute the present unhappy civil war with 
the demoniacal zeal of the Saracens, to exterminate the „ 
of slavery, who can tell or estimate the amount of respon" 
s.b.l.ty, present and prospective, now and in history! L 

pos: :'i'".:r"''^' "-" ^--^ -^ — ^^ -"<^-t wiiiim. 

cheerf.d V !l -^'''-n-"^ '"'^■'"- <="™« '« ''' '<> obey it 
cheei fully, and with wlhng mind, is my devout prayer. 

co,w '"P'''™™'^'-^ t». this department of my subject, I 

M.,i olst, 1860 Ihe writer is a graduate of the Virginia 
University ; and his article shows his schoh.rship and abiU 

on i< wnP" P'''"'"P'V'-^ °" ,'he account of the informa- 
tion It will give the reader on the terms.slave, servants &c • 
bu there are other valuable facts bearing on the sub ect 
well stated m the article : S'Unject 

PAUL ON ABOLITIONISM. 

New ENOLAND.-The following statement has appeared 
in religions journals published at Boston, Chicac.',^ New 
lorkand Pittsburg: "My strong conviction is,°that u,! 

bpirit, the day ,s not distant which will witness a more ex- 
tensive and appalling apostacy in New England than we 
have ever yet seen-and (hat apostacy will b^ into Univer! 
salism. Is this the whirlwind to bo reaped from sowinX 
^.nd of ultra anti-slaveryism ? Abolitionism seems t" us 
a very direct path to apostacy." 

Now, it does seem to me that this remark of the editor 
scarcely does ull justice to abolitionism. Let u look for 
a moment at the real facts of the case, al^d see if we ca„ 
rrrrr ',"""" "■' the apostacy of abolitionism itself" 
for I contend that It IS not only the path to apostacy, bu 

e, tinn't 't"^ ''f-^V ^^'' '"'sl't seem to be a bold a - 
seition to make, in the face of so many wise and reverend 
men whose names have adorned the times in which "hey 
ned But the writer believes that he has counted the oosi 
n making such a statement. Look at the authority, and 
then speak your mmd. Just about 1800 years ago, here 
was a young minister, who uad just been sent forth to 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 323 



preach the Gospel. He was remarkably ^^ell I'ead in the 
ScriDtures, having been trained in them from his childhood. 
His 'object in preaching the Gospel ^vas to teach men their 
duty, in order that they might be saved. But he jas 
youn^ and inexpei;ienced in the work, and though he under- 
stood very well the general character of his great work, 
and was familiar with the great central truths of the Gos- 
pel yet there were many particular points in the applica- 
tion of the teachings of the Gospel to every day life, on 
which he needed advice and instruction. Besides, he 
needed advice from an older preacher, as to how he should 
withstand the opposers of the Gospel, and how he should 
mana^re those still more dan.cerous opponents, who, P^otess- 
incr to° preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, should, 
inlfact, preach " anofher GospeV The name of this young 
preacher was Timothy. Now it so happened that iimothy 
had iust such a friend and adviser as he reeded in the per- 
son of the apostle Paul. This man was not only a very 
great preacher and distinguished orator, (see Longinus,) 
but he had been preaching about from place to place aTnong 
all classes of people. He had met with all sorts of inhdels, 
heathen, pagans, Sadducees, and worshippers of the ' Un- 
known God " He had refuted the philosophical dogmas ot 
the Epicureans and the Stoics. He had condemned heresy 
and apostacy wherever he had seen it. He had been 
through all sorts of tribulation and affliction, and had con- 
frontell all sorts of opposition. He had, moreover, been 
the means of Timothy's conversion. Now, these reasons 
made it very proper that Paul should give limothy the 
benefit of his experience, and accordingly he writes a letter 
to the young preacher. In the midst of this letter, he 
o-iveshimthe following directions: 1 Tim. vi, 1— " Let 
as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own 
masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his 
doctrine be not blasphemed." Let us pj^use here a moment 
and see what this means. In the first place, what is the 
exact meaning of the term serimiis? In the original it is 
** Douloi " This word is used in various places in the JNew 
Testament. Let us seek an illustration by comparing this 
passage with another, also penned by Paul himself. In 
Uomans i, 1, we find the following : - Paul a servant of 
Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle," &c. Now, the word 



324 CONCLUSION OF THE 

" doulos " used in this place to mean servant, is the singular 
number of precisely the same words which is used in the 
quotation from Timothy. If we can find out its meaning 
here, we can know what meaning to give to it there. Now, 
what does Paul mean by the term servant in this first chap- 
ter of Romans? The term seems capable of bearing but 
two interpretations. It either means a hireling, or it 
means that the person to whom the term applies is the 
property of the master. Now, it can not mean a hireling 
here. Paul did not mean to say that he was a hireling. 
Why, we know what an account Jesus himself gives of the 
hireling. He tells us (John x, 13,) that " the hireling fleeth 
because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep." 
This was not the character of Paul. His heart's desire 
and prayer to God for Israel was, that they might be saved. 
Besides, the word translated Idreling, in John x, 13, is to- 
tally different from the word servant in Rom. i, 1, and in 1 
Tim. vi, 1. In the first case, it is the word *' misthotos," 
or one who is paid for services rendered; in the other two 
cases, as we have seen, it is "doulos." 

But we can easily settle this question in a positive man- 
ner, by showing from Paul's other writings, in what sense 
he considered himself the servant of Jesus Christ. Let us 
turn to 1 Cor. vi, 19, 20, and we find Paul telling the ser- 
vants of Jesus Christ that they are not their own. And 
why? Is it because their time is hired? No, but it is be- 
cause they are bought iviih a price. Paul then means to 
say that he is a servant who is not his own, but is bought 
with a price ; and when expressing the relation in which he, 
a servant of Jesus Christ, stands to Christ, who bought him 
with a price, he uses the word ''doulos." This would seem 
to be a marvellously plain case to require any proof at all, 
were it not for the fact that abolition writers have tried to 
make it appear, to abolitionized ignorance, that the word 
"doulos" meant only a hireling, or a hired servant. This 
is certainly either perverting the right ways of the Lord, 
or else it is darkening counsel b;^ words without knowledge. 
But, after having settled the meaning of this term, let us 
look into the meaning of the rest of this verse. The apos- 
tle says that these servants are to give all honor to their 
masters. Now, who are these masters ? Are they simply 
the employers of the servants ? Are they the undertakers, 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 325 

and the others the laborers for pay ^ as the abolition scholars 
would have us believe ? This would be incompatible with 
our settled meaning of the word '* doulos ;" for it is evident 
that the words are correlative ; and that, if " doulos " 
means servant^ in the sense of slave, and not hireling, then 
the word " despotes," or master, would not supply the 
proper correlative idea, if it merely meant an undertaker. 
This interpretation would give Paul as valid a claim to 
nonsensical writing, as some of the abolition commentators 
on him have established for themselves. 

But, lest there should be any mistake in our reasoning, 
let us again consult the original, to get the true force and 
intent of the word. The Greek word "despotes" is used 
here. This is the very same as our word despot. The only 
difference is in the termination. Now, we should hardly 
suppose that abolitionism itself could believe that the Eng- 
lish word despot meant simply a master-workman or under- 
taker. What do we mean when we speak of a despotic 
government? Everybody knows that we mean a govern- 
ment in which the will of one man is the law. It would be 
absurd to talk of an undertaker or master-workman here. 
And so every Greek scholar knows that it is just as absurd 
to say that the Greek word " despotes " means a master- 
workman. Now, it would seem that this case was made 
out without a possibility of error. There seems to be no 
other rational interpretation for the passage than the one 
which is here given. But I am aware that there are those 
who are not guided by reasoning and argument. Some are 
blinded by prejudice ; some are deceived by the bold and 
utterly groundless statements of pretended scholars. For 
the benefit of those, as well as for his own satisfaction, the 
writer has been at some pains to find authority for what he 
holds to be the truth. The result of his investigation is as 
follows : Says Calepin : " Doulos — Latin, servus; i. e., qui 
sui juris non est, sed alieno domino suhjiciturJ^ The Eng- 
lish of this is as follows : A slave ; that is, one who of his 
own right possesses no existence, but is subjected to another 
as his master. This looks pretty plain. But hear him fur- 
ther. The Gallic of this word, he tells us, is serf. The 
French is esclave ; ItuViSin, servitor e ; Spanish, siervo; Anglo- 
Saxon, a man-servant. Says Schrevelii: "Doulos" — ser- 
vus. '* Suidas Lexicon Kusteri " says : " Doulos " — servus. 



326 CONCLUSION OF THE 

Jones' Lexicon : ^'Doulos" — a slave a servant; "doule" — 
a female slave. Damn : " Doule " — Latin, ancilla, serva — 
a female slave. Stephano : " Doulos " — servus, correlative 
" despotes," opposite " eleutheros." Now, "despotes" 
means a master, and is the correlative term to " doulos ;" 
and "eleutheros" means a freeman, and is opposed to 
"doulos." Du Fresne says: "Doule" — ancilla. Now, 
ancilla means a female slave, a handmaid. Donnegan tells 
us that " doulos " means a slave, a servant. Grove : " Dou- 
lous " — a slave, a servant. Pickering : " Doulos " — a slave, 
a servant. Diddell and Scott : " Doulos " — a slave, a bond- 
man, strictly one born so ; opposed to " andrapodon " — ti 
slave taken captive in war, from the idea of the captive 
falling at the feet of the conqueror; " doulous," from 
" deo," to bind. This derivation of the word is put down 
by the lexicographer as only probable ; and in this idea, he 
seems to be sustained by Professor Gildersleeve, of the 
University of Virginia, who is decidedly the highest author- 
ity I know, and who holds that the origin of the word is 
not settled. The Persian word is hendet^ probably akin to 
our word bondman. 

Now, " doulos" is not the only Greek word which means 
a servant or slave. On the contrary, the Greek language 
is exceedingly rich in its variety, and most critically nice 
in its distinctions. This is a marked peculiarity of the lan- 
guage in general ; and seldom does this peculiarity show 
itself more plainly, than in the various words with which 
the Greeks provided themselves for expressing the various 
modifications of the idea contained in the word servant. 
For example: "Andropodon" — a slave taken captive; 
" doulos " — one born so ; " douleuma " — one bought with 
money ; " doulosunos ' ' — one enslaved ; " doularion " — a 
little slave; "pais" — a slave, and in general a servant 
maid ; " paidion " — a young slave, lad ; " paidarion " — a 
young slave ; " ktema" — property in slaves ; " paidiske " — 
a young female slave. Now, here were evidently words 
enough to choose from, (and we have not exhausted them,) 
so that we are not to suppose that the word "doulo." is 
used because it came pretty near the idea, and there was 
no word to express it exactly. This supposition is too vio- 
lent even for an abolitionist, if he has any pretensions to 
Greek scholarship. But lest it may be supposed that the 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 327 

meaning of this word is different in the New Testament 
from what it is anywhere else, we may cite the following 
passages from the classic Greek authors, and any one who 
feels disposed, and has the opportunity, may compare the 
passages. The word "doulos," or some modification or 
synonym of it, occurs, I believe, in the following places : 
Thucjdides viii, 28, iv, 34, ii, 61, and i, 18; Euripides He- 
cuba 865 ; Ibid Ion 556 ; Herodotus vii, 7, i, 27, i, 94, 174; 
Homer's Odyssey 22, 423. " But if Paul had desired to 
express the idea of a hired servant in this place," says 
some man, "could he have found any other word to use?" 
We answer, in the first place, that whether he could or not, 
he could not use this word " doulous." Words, like facts, 
are stubborn things. After their meaning has been settled 
by universal use for centuries, we can not take them up 
and give them an entirely new meaning, without giving any 
sort of intimation of the fact, that we mean by the words, 
not what others mean, but something totally different from 
anything which the words ever meant before. Now, the 
word *• doulous" never means a hireling or a hired servant. 
There is not a single authenticated case in the whole range 
of Greek literature, where the word has that meaning. 
And, therefore, even if there had been as great a dearth of 
words as there actually is an abundance in the Greek lan- 
guage for the expression of this idea, still Paul could not 
have used this word for it, without giving us some intima- 
tion of the liberty he was taking. But just see how very 
ridiculous this abolition idea of hireling becomes, when we 
compare it wita other passages in the Bible, where the same 
or cognate idea is to be expressed. I have found the ex- 
pression "hired servant" in nine different passages of our 
version of the Bible. Exodus xii, 45 — " A hired servant 
shall not eat thereof," &c. Here the Greek word of the 
Septuagint is not " doulos," but "misthotos" — one who is 
paid for services rendered- Lev. xxii, 10, "misthotos" is 
the word. In Lev. xxv, 6, the term " hired servant " occurs 
under such circumstances as to bring out the difference on 
which we are insisting. Our version has it, "And the Sab- 
bath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for 
thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy lured servant^ 
&c. In the Septuagint, the Greek word used here for ser- 
vant is "pais;" for maid- servant, or maid, " paidiske ;" but 



328 CONCLUSION OF THE 

for hired servant^ the same old word, " misthotos." Lev. 
XXV, 40, our version has hired servant — Septuagint, " mis- 
thotos." Lev. XXV, 53, our version has hired servant — 
Septuagint, " misthotos." Deut. xv, 18, our version, hired 
servant — Septuagint, " misthotos," Deut. xxiv, 14, our 
version, hired servant — Septuagint, "raisthou." Mark i, 
20, our version, hired servant — Greek, " misthotos." Luke 
XV, 18, our , version, hired servant — Greek Testament, 
" misthotos." 

Now let us see if any better foundation can be found for 
abolitionism, if we give them the word hireling instead of 
hired servant. This word is found eight times in the Bible. 
Job vii, 1, our version has hireling — Septuagint, "mistho- 
tos." Job vii, 2, our version, hireling — Septuagint, " ther- 
apon." Job xiv, 16, our version, hireling — Septuagint, 
" misthotos." Isaiah xvi, 14, our version, hireling — Sep- 
tuagint, '' misthotos." Isaiah xxi, 16, our version, hireling — 
Septuagint, " misthotos." Malachi iii, 5, our version, hire- 
ling — Septuagint, "misthotos." John x, 12, our version, 
hireling — Greek Testament, "misthotos." John x, 13, our 
version, hireling — Greek Testament, "misthotos." Now, 
here are some seventeen or eighteen cases, in which the 
word hireling (or the term hired servant) is used in our 
English version, and not once do we find the word " dou- 
los" to answer to it. Really, it does seem that the learn- 
ing of abolitionism must be exceedingly stupid, if it can 
not see that the word " doulos " means a slave, and not a 
hireling. But let us examine one more extract from Lid- 
dell & Scott's Lexicon. Under the word "despotes," which 
is translated master in 1 Tim. vi, 1, we find the following : 
"A master, lord, strictly in respect of slaves; so that the 
address of a slave to his master was, ' o despot anax :* 
hence a despot, absolute ruler, whose subjects are slaves." 
The reader may find further light by consulting Herodotus 
i, 11, 111 ; iii, 89— Thucydides vi, 77— Eurip. Hypp. 88— 
Xenophon Anab. viii, 2, 13 ; vii, 4, 10. 

Now, I hold that abolitionism leads to apostacy, because 
it makes abolition commentators pervert the right ways of 
the Lord, and attempt to deceive the unsuspecting and ig- 
norant, by making them believe that when Paul writes on 
the relative duties of master and slave, he does not mean 
master and slave, but he means something else, which some- 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, 329 

tiling else the words never did or could mean. But we 
promised to show not only that abolitionism led to apostacy, 
but that it was apostacy itself. Now, we can do this, if 
Paul is authority. What is his reason for exhorting ser- 
vants to honor their masters? Why, "that the name of 
Ood and his doctrine be not blasphemed." The idea here 
is evidently this : *' If there are servants among you chris- 
tians, and they pretend to belong to the Lord, and at the 
same time do not attend to their duties as servants, and do 
not honor their masters, the unbelieving world around you 
will make light of and blaspheme the doctrine which pro- 
duces such fruits." Compare Rom. ii, 24; Titus ii, 5. 
Now% I contend that those who withstand the doctrine that 
Paul here teaches, are not only on the road to apostacy, 
but have already reached it. For, look further on in this 
chapter, (1 Tim. vi.) and we find Paul directing Timothy to 
teach and exhort the people in the doctrine of obedience of 
servants to masters. " These things teach and exhort." 
Brethren of the Southern pulpit, have we done our duty? 
Have we been teaching and exhorting these things? Or 
have we let a fear of being thought to meddle w4th politics, 
keep us back from declaring the whole counsel of God? 
Remember, that before Columbus was born, before this con- 
tinent was dreamed of, even when the Jews were traveling 
through the wilderness, God saw fit to legislate upon this 
subject ; and amidst the dense smoke and vollied thunders 
of Sinai's awful scenes, there came forth the table of stone, 
written by the finger of tlie Lord God Omnipotent, and de- 
claring to the race of men that they should not covet their 
neighbor's house, nor his wife, nor his man-servant, nor his 
maid servant, nor anything that was their neighbors. Sla- 
very had its religious importance for thousands of years 
before New England was known. And shall we, ministers 
of the Most High, suffer our mouths to be stopped by a 
few puny politicians? No ! let us do our duty, and declare 
CJod's truth on this subject, as on all others, without fear of 
anything that man can do unto us. But Paul goes on to 
say, that '* if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to 
wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is 
proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and 
strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil- 
22 



S30 CONCLUSION OF THE 

surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds 
and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness; 
from such withdraw thjself !" There is the finest picture 
of modern abolitionism in the language. Paul must have 
been acquainted with some abolitionist, or else he looked 
forward to the abolition rant and hubbub of the 19th cen- 
tury. Paul knew very well that the words which he had 
been writing, (namely, that servants were to honor their 
masters) were *' wholesome words, even the word^ of our 
Lord Jesus Christ." And of course he knew how to de- 
scribe those who should teach otherwise. lie practised his 
own doctrine, too, sending Onesimus, the runaway slave, 
back to his master, Philemon. See how fully his descrip- 
tion of the abolitionist coincides with the character of those 
same fanatics of the present day. " Proud," says PauL 
" Yes," says Henry Ward Beecher himself, " so proud are 
you, that there is more sympathy for the negro even among 
the slaveholders themselves, than among you." " Knowing 
nothing," says Paul ; and sure enough, they do not evcD 
know enough to be aware of the fact, the open, palpable, 
staring faet, that a negro is a negro, and not a blackened 
white man, " Doting about questions and strifes of words;" 
just exactly so. For instance, discussing the various " isms " 
and such like. "Envy, railings, evil- surmisings, perverse 
disputings of men of corrupt minds," &c. For example^ 
calling for an anti-slavery Bible, an anti-slavery Constitu- 
tion, and an anti-slavery God; saying, as they have said, 
that the Constitution of their country is "a league with 
hell ;" that " such a God as is described in the Bible, they 
would put him upon a block and sell him ;" and to clap the 
climax, proclaiming to the world that it is now old fogyism 
to trust for salvation in Jesus Christ and him crucified, and 
that henceforth the faith of the people is to rest on " Johri 
Brown and him hanged." " From such," says Paul, '* with- 
draw thyself;" and from such, say I, good Lord deliver usc 

J. C, HiDEN, 
Orange County, Va. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 331 

THE DUTY OF CHRISTIANS IK CIVIL 
GOVERNMENTS. 

Christians, as such, though in the worhl, are not of the 
world. While in this state of existence, they necessarily 
have to remain -upon this globe, which God prepared for the 
habitation of man before he created hira. 

Man, consisting of body, soul and spirit, is partly matter 
and partly spirit. lie is the connecting link in God's crea- 
tion, between matter and spirit. The globe was prepared 
for him, and he was created and placed upon it. The fruits 
of the earth were given to him for food,^ which were suffi- 
cient to sustain his animal or physical system ; and the 
fruit of the tree of life was provided and given to him, to 
rejuvenate and revivify his animal system, and make its ex- 
istence perpetual. Everything upon the earth, and within 
his reach was given to him, excepting the fruit of one tree, 
of which he was prohibited from partaking, on pain of 
death. 2 He transgressed that command, was driven from 
the tree of life, and death ensued from it; and the earth 
was cursed for his sake. In this state of affairs, without 
redemption, the race was cut off and destroyed, and could 
not have perpetuated its existence. 

But God "so loved the world as to give his only begot- 
ten Son, that whosoever believes on him, may not perish, 
but obtain eternal life."^ Those who believe on him, and 
confide in him as the Captain of their salvation and their 
King, may not perish, but may obtain eternal life, from 
which the race was cut off by the transgression of Adam. 
He is " the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the 
world,""* " that the world may be saved by him."^ 

Other orders of intelligences sinned against the God of 
heaven, but no provision was made for their redemption. 
God " hath reserved them in everlasting chains under dark- 
ness unto the judgment of the great day.''^ But redemp- 
tion was provided for the race of man, that his body may 
be redeemed from the bars of death, and raised a spiritual 
and immortal bod^ — not animal and earthly as it was be- 
fore — and his spirit cleansed and purified from sin, the re- 



H) 


Gen. i, 29. 


(-t) 


John i, 29, New Trans. 


(2 


Gen. ii, 16, 17. 


(5) 


Johniii, 17, New Trans. 


(3) 


Johniii, 16, New Trans. 


(6) 


Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii, 4. 



332 CONCLUSION OF THE 

deemed and resuscitated man may dwell in the presence of 
the Lord, in whose presence he was before he sinned ; but 
with this difference, that he will be wholly spiritual in his 
redeemed and resuscitated state, whereas, ho was partly 
earthly and partly spiritual, in his primeval state. Hence, 
those who so conduct themselves as to obtain this "inheri- 
tance incorruptible, undefikd, and that fadeth not away,"^ 
will hold a much higher position in the scale of existence, 
than Adam held in Eden. 

In the Lord's government of the race after it sinned, as 
well as before, he used moral power or motive only, till 
near the flood. He did not inflict physical punishment 
upon Cain, the first murderer, but set a mark upon him, lest 
any finding him should slay him.^ The result of this sys- 
tem was, that in fourteen centuries " the earth was filled 
with violence."^ The Lord then laid down a new law : 
" My spirit [by moral power, persunsion,] shall not always 
strive with man, for he also is flesh : yet his days shall be 
an hundred and twenty years.""* That was the probation 
given them in which to turn to God, and Noah was ap- 
pointed a preacher of righteousness,^ to reclaim them to 
the commands of God without God's having to inflict phys- 
ical punishment. But God said to Noah, " the end of all 
flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence 
through them : and behold I will destroy them with the 
earth. "^ They did not repent at the preaching of Noah, 
and God, in his own proper person, inflicted the first legal, 
physical, capital punishment, that was inflicted upon the 
earth, by destroying the race, except Noah and his family ; 
to whom he prescribed physical punishment for crime and 
violence, as the law of the postdiluvian world : 

"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at 
the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand 
of man ; at the hand of every man's brother will I require 
the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, b^^ man 
shall his blood be shed : for in the image of God made he 
man."^ 

Here he invested man with governmental powers to pun- 
ish crime, and made it his duty, as stated in the law of 



(1) 1 Pet. 1, 4. (4) Gen. ri, 3. (7) Gen. ix, 5, 6. 

(2) Gen. iv, 15. (5) 2 Pet. ii, 5. 

(3) Gen. vi, 11, 13. (6) Gen. vi,lS. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAYERY. 333 

Moses afterwards, to cleanse the land of the blood of mur- 
der by the blood of the murderer;^ thus making man his 
minister on earth for governmental purposes. But he was 
made his minister for wrath or punishment, " a revenger to 
execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."^ The Lord was 
still the minister of mercy, moral power, or motive, in the 
government of man, as he had been before the flood ; and 
by the Spirit, he continued to strive with man, and still 
does continue to strive. 

In the wrath department, or physical punishment depart- 
ment, of God's government of man on earth, from Noah's 
day forward, (iod made use of some of the worst monsters 
of human government, as well as some of the best, to exe- 
cute his wrath upon the children of disobedience. The 
Babylonian and Roman powers, who were made ministers 
of wrath against the Jewish nation at two different periods 
of time, are specimens of the former ; while Israel under 
Joshua, and Cyrus the Great, are specimens of the latter. 
Herce, to be God's minister of wrath, does not imply that 
the power which is that minister, whether it be a people or 
a sovereign, is righteous, or even praiseworthy or desirable. 
It is simply to be an executioner or hangman, which is not 
a very desirable calling. 

For reasons not revealed, and hence unknown to us, God 
permitted things to go on thus after the flood, century after 
century. And these kingdoms of this world, monsters 
though many of them were, were made ministers of the 
wrath of God to execute his vengeance upon the ungodly ; 
for vengeance belongs to him, and not to man.^ He would 
use one nation as a minster of vengeance on another, and 
shortly after bring another to take vengeance on his first 
minister; all of which the history of the Bible, as well as 
profane history, abundantly proves. 

In the fulness of time, however, the Lord himself became 
incarnate and dwelt among us, to re-establish his kingdom^ 
on earth, as it existed before the flood, (so far as govern- 
mental matters are concerned,) and to supersede human 
governments as ministers of God's wrath, by remodelling 
society, so that moral power alone will govern it, termina- 
ting in bringing his followers back to the tree of life, 

(1) Num. XXXV, 33. ^3) Deut. xixii, 35, 43 ; Kom. xii, 19 ; Heb. x, 30. 

(2) Bom. xiii, 4. 



334 CONCLUSION OF THE 

■whence sin expelled them ; having effected which, he ■will 
then have put all things under his feet, and will then sur- 
render the kingdom to God.^ His kingdom, however, was 
not set up on earth, until after his humiliation, his death, 
his burial, his resurrection, and his ascension, when God 
*' exalted him with his right hand a Prince and Savior, to 
grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins;"^ when 
he was crowned Lord of all, and sent forth the Spirit ac- 
cording to the promise of the Father, to bis apostles, who 
set up his kingdom on the day of Pentecost. That king- 
dom is his body, and he is its head.^ 

Though his kingdom was not set up till after his ascen- 
sion, yet, during his ministry, he taught its principles ; and 
after his ascension, his apostles fully developed its laws. 

At the beginning of his ministry, he chose his twelve 
apostles. They then became the germ of his kingdom. 
He told them that they were not of this world, but that he 
had chosen them out of the world.* He prayed to the 
Father for them "because they are not of the world;" not 
that he should " take them out of the world," but that he 
should " keep them from evil. They are not of the world, 
even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy 
truth : thy word is truth. As thou has sent me into the 
world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And 
for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be 
sanctified through the truth. "^ 

Hence, christians, as such, as the body of Christ, as his 
kingdom, though in the world, are not of the world. They 
are chosen by the Lord out of the world, though while in 
this life they remain in this v»'orld. They are a holy nation, 
a purchased people, who in times past were not a people, 
but are now the people of God. As christians, they are 
sojourners in this v/orld, and travelers or pilgrims through 
it.^ 

When Pilate asked the Lord if he was the King of the 
Jews, he testified the truth, and said that he was a King ; 
but informed Pilate, who was the representative of the Ro- 
man majesty, that his kingdom was not of this world: "if," 
said he, " my kingdom were of this world, then would my 



(1) 1 Cor. XV, 24-23. (4) John xv, 19. 

(2; Acts V, 31. (5) John xvii, 13-19. 

(3) 1 Cor. xii, 2Y ; Eph. iii, «j iv, 12 ; v, 25; Col. i, 18. (6) 1 Pet. ii, 6-11, N. T. 



DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. S35 

seTvants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews : 
but now is my kingdona not from hence. "^ 

Here the two kingdoms were brought fa<;e to face. The 
kingdom of this world, the Roman power, represented bj 
Pilate, and the kingdom of the Lord, represented by the 
King himself. The Lord informed the representative of 
the former, that his kingdom was not of this world. Pilate 
knew that the kingdom he represented, was of this world. 
But as the Lord's kingdom Y>^as not of this world, there was 
no conflict of the jurisdictions of the two kingdoms. The 
Lord, though King himself, prospectively, while in this 
world, submitted to the kingdom of this world, and there 
was no conflict between the two powers. In this he leffc 
^'us an example, that we should follow his steps."^ 

But the Lord said if his kingdom were of this world, 
then would his servants fight that he should not be deliv- 
ered to the Jews. When he was arrested, Peter drew his 
sword, and struck off the ear of the high Priest's servant. 
The Lord healed the wound and said to Peter, " Put up 
again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the 
sword, shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I 
ean not now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give 
me more than twelve legions of angels?"^ 

There are some things to be noted here. 

The kingdoms of this world operate through physical 
potver, because the servants of those kingdoms fight. .For 
the Lord said that his servants would have fought had his 
kingdom been of this world. And he could have had an 
army of twelve legions of angels instantly, to phjsieallj 
overcome the Jewish and Roman powers, if physical force 
could have been lawfully used in his kingdom, as it was in 
the kingdoms of this world. But it could not be so law- 
fully used. " For the wrath [or physical power] of man 
worketh not the righteousness of God."* The righteous- 
ness of God, or what God has prescribed should be donCj 
is not to be wrought out or brought about by physical 
force, the wrath or punishment of man. Hence, the folly 
and sinfulness of all persecution in religious matters, down 
eyeu to the fanatical folly of "wiping out the sin of sla- 
very" by civil war. 

(1) John XTiii, 33-36. (3) Matt. xxTi, 51-53. 

i2) IPet. ii, 21. (A) James i, 20. 



836 CONCLUSION OF THE 

" All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." 
The STv.ord is the emblem of the power of the kingdoms of 
this world ; and it is physical power, force. Physical power 
can not be used in the Lord's kingdom. Moral power 
alone, motive, the power put forth in the Gospel, which i& 
the power of God,^ is the only power that can be used ia 
the kingdom of the Lord, which is " far above all princi- 
pality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every 
name that is named, not only in this world, but also that 
which is to come ;''^ and it wrestles "not against flesh and 
blood, [physical wrestling] but against principalities, against 
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this worlds 
against spiritual wickedness in high [heavenly, ecclesiasti- 
cal] places ;"" and the Lord, the head of the christian king- 
dom, " is the head of all principality and power,"* and will 
finally overthrow all those principalities and powers, when 
*' the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of 
our Lord and of his Christ."^ But all this will be done by 
moral power alone. Physical power has not been used, 
and will not be used by the Lord, to effect this. He 
'* healed all their sick, enjoining them not to make him 
known. Thus the word of the prophet Isaiah was verified, 
' Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in 
whom my soul delights ; I will cause my spirit to abide 
upon him, and he shall give laws to the nations ; he will not 
contend, nor clamor, nor cause his voice to be heard in the 
streets. A bruised reed he will not break ; and a dimly 
burning taper he will not quench, till he render his laws 
victorious. Nations shall trust in his name.^"^ As the 
kingdoms of this world are all thus to perish by the tri- 

(1) Rom. i, 16, ir. (3) Eph. vi, 12. (5) Rev. xi, 15. 

(2) Eph. i.21. H) C&l.ii.lO. 

(6) Matt, xii, 15-21, New Translation. The kingly conquests aad triamphant victories 
of the Messiah, are the subject on which Isaiah dwells in that part of his prophecy from 
which this quotation is made. The emblems introduced by the prophet are designed to- 
show the ease with which these victories shall be obtained. No trumpets, spears, or 
torches, shall be employed in making his laws victorious. He will not employ such wea- 
pon> in subduing the nations under him ; not even a bruised reed will be broken as r. sub- 
fttitute for a spear or lance ; not a spark of fire, not even an expiring wick will be con- 
sumed or extinguished, in bringing nations under his yoke. How unlike his conquests are 
to those obtained by fire and sword I The spear and the torch of ancient warriors, and the 
clangor of trumpets, are alluded to in these representations of Messiah's regal achieve- 
ments. * * * With these remarks we introduce Bishop Lowtk's translation of Isaiah 
ilii, 1-5: 

Behold my servant, whom I will uphold; 

My chosen, m whom my soul delights: 

I will make my spirit rest upon him ; 

And he shall publish judgment to. the nations.. 

He shall uot ciy aloud, nor raise a clamor» 



DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 337 

umphs of the Lord's kingdom obtained without contention, 
or clamoi\ or the exertion of physical power even to the 
breaking of a bruised reed as a spear, the sword the power 
of the kingdoms of this world, will perish with those king- 
doms. And the Lord says in the passage under considera- 
tion, that all that take the sword shall perish with it; shall 
perish }vhen it perishes. Hence, christians who desire to 
survive the sword, and not to perish when it perishes, had 
better not voluntarily take the sword. Those who desire to 
survive the law of force had better not voluntarily resort to 
it. They who take and rely upon physical power, will per- 
ish when that power perishes ; while they who take, adhere 
to, and rely upon the Lord, and the principles of his king- 
dom, will stand in his kingdom, which endures forever, and 
shall not perish. 

The Lord taught his disciples to pray " thy will be done 
on earth as it is in heaven ;''* as recorded by Luke : "Thy 
will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. "^ How is his will 
done in heaven ? *' Ye his angels, that excel in [mighty 
inj strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto 
the voice of his word."^ In heaven his commands are 
hearkened to and done because they are his commands. 
No disobedience : and no coercion, force or physical power, 
used to compel obedience. The Lord taught us to pray for 
that state of affairs on the earth. When it shall have come, 
human governments, the ministers of God's wrath, his aven- 
gers to execute his vengeance upon the ungodly and the 
disobedient, will no longer be needed on earth — their oc- 
cupation will be gone, and the kingdoms of this world will 
have become the kingdoms of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
the Millennium will have set in. Hence, the Psalmist sang, 
" Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.""* 
They shall need no coercion, wrath, or vengeance. 

The kingdoms of this world have jurisdiction of things 
pertaining to this world, life, liberty, and property. The 
Lord's kingdom is not of this world; hence, he, in all his 

Nor cause his voice to be heard in the public places ; 

The bruised reed he shall not break ; 

And the dimly burning flax he shall not quench : 

He shall publish judgment so as to establish it perfectly. 

His force shall not be abated, nor broken, 

Until he has flrnaly seated judgment in the earth : 

And the distant nations shall earnestly wait for his law. 

— A. Campbeli'a Note on Ihe Pa»»aff0. 
(1) Matt. Ti, 10. (2) Lukexi,2. (3) Ps. ciii, 20. (4) Ps. ex. a. 



338 CONCLUSION OF THE 

ministry, refrained, upon all occasions, from interfering 
with matters pertaining to this world, or with the affairs of 
the kingdoms of this world, and what pertained to them. 
After he had fed the five thousand with five loaves and two 
fishes, when he '* perceived that they would come and take 
him by force, and make him a [political] king, he departed 
again into a mountain himself alone,"^ to prevent them from 
doing it. When '' one of the company said unto him. Mas- 
ter, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with 
me," he said, '* Man, who made me a judge or a divider 
over you?"^ That was a question to be settled, and a duty 
to be' performed by the civil government, the kingdom of 
this world having jurisdiction of the property and of the 
parties; and the Lord would not act in it — it did not belong 
to his kingdom. His course was the same in the case of 
the woman taken in adultery. He refused to give judg- 
ment in the case, because he had no jurisdiction of the 
cause. He did not set in Moses' seat to give judgment un- 
der the laws of Moses. 

The next transaction and act of the Lord that I shall 
note and observe upon, has so great a bearing upon the 
subject under consideration, and is so exact a daguereotype 
of many persons now existing, and of so many things now 
transpiring, that I shall quote it at length from each of the 
three inspired writers that record it, Matthew, Mark and 
Luke. I quote from the New Translation. The reader 
will have the common version, and can read them as they 
stand in that version. 

*' Then the Pharisees retired, and having consulted how 
they might entrap him in his words, sent him some of their 
disciples, and some Herodians, M'ho, being instructed hy 
them, said. Rabbi, we know that you are sincere, and faith- 
fully teach the way of God, without partiality, for you re- 
spect not the person of men. Tell us, therefore, your 
opinion: Is it lawful to give tribute to Casar, or not? 
Jesus perceiving their malice, said. Dissemblers, why would 
you entangle me ? Show me the tribute money. And they 
reached him a denarius. He asked them, Whose image 
and inscription is this? They answered, Cesar's. He re- 
replied, Render^ then, to Cesar thai which is Cesar's, and to 

(1) John vi, 15. (2) Luke xii, 13, U. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY, 339 

God that which is God's. And admiring his answer, they 
left him and went away."^ 

" And thej/ desired to have seized him^ but were afraid of 
the multitude; for they knew that he spoke the 2^ arable against 
them. Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders, 
leaving Jesus, went away, and sent to him certain Pharisees 
and Flerodians, to catch him in his luords. These coming up, 
said to him. Rabbi, we know that you are upright, and 
stand in awe of none ; for you respect not the person of 
men, but teach the ways of God faithfully. Is it lawful to 
give tribate to Cesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we 
not give ? He, perceiving their artifice, answered. Why 
would you entangle me? Bring me a denarius, that I 
may see it. When they had brought it, he asked them, 
Whose is this image and inscription ? They answered, 
Cesar's. Jesus replied. Render to Cesar that tohich is Cesar s, 
and to God that which is God's. And they wondered at 
him."2 

'* At that time, the chief priests and scribes, knoiving that 
he had spoken this parable against them, would have laid 
hands on him, but feared the people. And they watched 
him, and set spies upon him, instructing them to personate 
conscientious men, and surprise him in his words, that they 
might consign him to the power and authority of the procura- 
tor. These accosted him with this question : Rabbi, we 
know that you speak and teach uprightly, and that, without 
respect of persons, you faithfully recommend the way of 
God. Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Cesar, or not? 
lie, perceiving their subtlety, answered, Why would you 
entangle me? Show me a, denarius. Whose image and 
inscription has it? They answered, Cesar's. He replied. 
Render, therefore, to Cesar that which is Cesar's, and to God 
that which is God's. Thus they could not surprise him in 
his discourse before the people; wherefore, admiring his 
answer, they kept silence."^ 

1. The chief priests were at the head of this conspiracy 
against the immaculate founder of Christianity. They have 
been at the head of all conspiracies against his immaculate 
religion, and of all persecutions of those who follow the 
teaching and example of the Lord, from the day of this 
conspiracy until the present time, and now are. 

(1) Matt, xiii, 15-22. (2) Mark xii, 12-lT. ^3) Luke xx, l»-36. 



340 CONCLUSION OF THE 

2. But they had with them in this conspiracy the scribes 
and Pharisees. The scribes were the writers and expound- 
ers of the Mosaic law. They were the administrators of 
that law as a civil government among the people, and rep- 
resented the civil authority in this conspiracy. Tlie Phari- 
sees were the super-pious among the Jews, giving cijual 
weight, however, to tradition (inference, philosophy, reason, 
argument) that they did to the written word itself. The 
reader's mind can easily fix upon those who now occupy 
their position. 

3. The chief priests, scribes and Pharisees desired to 
seize the Lord that they might consign him to the military 
despotism then in Judea, because he spoke a parable against 
them ihat exposed their abominable character and conduct. 
"Who are doing so now ? The reader's mind can easily sug- 
gest the answer. 

4. They " were afraid of the multitude," they " feared 
the people." Who is afraid of the multitude now? Who 
now fear the people? Who tries to crush down the multi- 
tude of the people? Answer : The chief priests, the super- 
pious, and those who are now unfortunately holding the 
places in our government that the scribes did in the Jewish 
polity. 

5. The Pharisees (the super-pious) retired, and consulted 
how they might entrap the Lord in his words, upon a po' 
litical question. 

6. The chi"f priests and scribes watched him, and set 
spies upon him. They are now at the same work, only 
that it is the Lord's disciples — those who follow the Lord's 
example and teaching — that they are watching and setting 
spies upon, instead of the Lord himself. 

7. The chief priests, scribes and l*harisees instructed 
their spies and emissaries. Yes, they instructed them to 
*' personate conscientious men," to "feign themselves just 
men." That was pretty work for the chief-priests and 
super-pious to be engaged in; but they engaged in such 
business then, and still do. They were instructed to per- 
sonate and feign themselves such men, and surprise him in 
his wi)rds, that they might consign him to the power and 
authority of the satrap of the Roman despot. It is not 
lawful to enquire whether that satrap was a Burnside or 
not; but it lies in our way to enquire whether our chief 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 841 

priests, scribes, and Pharisees, are rot now acting as the 
same classes of gentlemen did in the Lord's day? 

8. The emissaries approached the Lord with great appa- 
rent respect and deference, hypocritical though it all was. 
We know, said they, that you are sincere, and faithfully 
teach the way of God without partiality, and do not care 
for any man. We know that you are upright, and stand in 
awe of none; for you respect not the person of men, but 
teach the way of God faithfully ; and without respect of 
persons, you faithfully recommend the way of God. This 
was laying on flattery tolerably thick. I suppose, too, that 
they had on very long, pious faces. Having thus laid so 
good a foundation, they proceeded: "Tell us, therefore, 
your opinion : Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not?'' 
"Shall we give, or shall we not give?" "Is it lawful for 
us [the chosen people of God] to pay taxes to Cesar or not?" 

fart of the emissaries sent were Herodians, a set of men 
peculiarly attached to Herod, and consequently zealous for 
the interests of the Roman government, which was the 
main support of the dignity of the royal family of Herod— 
they were the "intensely loyal." They held that it was 
lawful to pay tribute to Cesar, or to the Romans, who had 
conquered and then governed Judea. The Pharisees, who 
had sent some of their disciples among the emissaries, held 
that it was not lawful to pay tribute or taxes to the Roman 
government, that it was contrary to the divine law to do 
so, and hence a sin; and they had more proof for that 
dogma of theirs, than abolitionists have for their dogma, 
that to pay the services and labor due to the masters by 
the slaves is sinful, as can be seen by examining Deuteron- 
omy xvii, 14-20, which comes much nearer proving the 
Pharisaic dogma,, than any Scripture that abolitionists can 
produce, comes to proving their dogma: and yet the Phar- 
isaic dogma is not proved by the above cited passage relied 
on by them. Hence, there was some apparent pretext for 
this application to the Lord to settle this question between 
the Herodians and Pharisees. But their application was 
really hypocritical ; because both parties rejected the au- 
thority of the Lord, and despised him, and. of course, 
would not be bound by, nor submit to, his decision of the 
question. They asked Ms opinion for ulterior, base, and 
unAVorthy purposes, and not that they might obtain an au- 



342 CONCLUSION OF THE 

thoritative settlement of the question. Thej th >uglit that 
they had cast the toils around him, and so laid the snare, 
that he could not escape them. If he should say that it 
was not lawful, the Herodians would accuse him to the Ro- 
man governor for '^ disloyalty," " disloyal practices," trea- 
son against Cesar. If he should say it was lawful, the 
Pharisees, the Praise-God-Barebones class of that day, 
■would denounce him to the Jewish people, as the betrayer 
of the liberties of their country, and as opposed to the law 
of God; as pro-Roman in sentiment, as a Roman sympa- 
thizer, and in favor of the monster iniquity of the desecra- 
tion of the holy city by the Roman *' power." A very 
nicely concocted scheme indeed it was, and devised and put 
into executton by very patriotic and very pious gentlemen. 
We have an abundance of just such pious patriots now-a- 
days.^ 

9. But the Lord perceived their malice. Their cunning, 
artifice, and subtlety, could not deceive him. " He know- 
ing their hypocrisy," told them that they were " dissem- 
blers," " hypocrites," and asked them why they sought to 
entangle him? How pertinent that question now is to be 
asked of the many similar pretentious, pious patriots we 
have! He asked them to *' show him a denarius." He 
asked them whose image and inscription it had. They told 
him, Cesar's. He then gave his answer : Render, there- 
fore, TO Cesar that which is Cesar's, and to God that 
WHICH is God's. 

This was not dodging the question upon his part, to avoid 
committing himself; but it was the truth of God upon the 
subject. It was the same answer that would have been 
given if his interrogators had been as sincere, honest and 
candid as they pretended to be. Their malice, chicanery 
and hypocrisy, did not cause him to give a cunningly de- 
vised answer to avoid responsibility. He came into the 

(1) As one among the many thousand proofs that could be cited to sustain this asser- 
tion, I quote the following : 

" If the Bible teaches that the christian owes no duty to his government in such limes 
as these, let us tell the people so. If it teach that a christian does owe a duty to his gov- 
ernment, let us also tell the peoble so. Neutrality is duplicity, and is unworthy any 
man, much less a christian man, and a leader and teacher of the people. It is either 
right or wrong to sustain our government in this struggle. Will Bro. Campbell ask Bro. 
Franklin which it is, and let us have his reply V^— C/iristia7i Jiecord, Aug loth, 1863. 

A very nic<; plan (and exactly similar to that of old) to entangle and destroy brother 
Franklin, because he is following the example of the Lord. But it is really complimen- 
tary to him to have the malice of such men thus exhibited as to him, as it was exhibited 
as to the Lord. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 843 

world to bear witness to the truth,' and he did so upon this 
occasion, as upon all other occasions. Never " was guile 
found in his mouth. "^ His answer dumfounded his interro- 
gators. They admired it, wondered at it, kept silence, and 
went away and left him. The truth always discomfits chi- 
canery, cunning, knavery, and hypocrisy, if brought to 
bear directly upon them. 

Let us now ascertain what this answer of the Lord 
teaches. 

The first thing to note is, that the answer clearly shows 
that there is no conflict of claim between Cesar and God. 
All that was Cesar's could be rendered to Cesar, and still 
all that God required could be rendered to him, notwith- 
standing Cesar had got all that was his, from the same per- 
son or persons. The command is, to render to Cesar the 
things that are Cesar's, and to God the things that are God's ; 
and this command applies to all of us now, as well as it did 
to those to whom the Lord addressed it. Hence, to dis- 
charge our duty under it, we must ascertain what things are 
Cesar's, and what filings are God's. For much of the trou- 
ble that has existed, and still does exist, and many of the 
calamities that have come upon mankind, and still are upon 
us, have been produced by the usurpation by Cesar of 
things that do not belong to him, or by the sinful intermed- 
dling by those who claim to be acting for God, with things 
that are not God's, but Cesar's. 

All admit and take Cesar as standing for, and represent- 
ing, the kingdoms of this world. The coins of a country 
designate the sovereignty of a country. Coining money 
has always been, and still is, a sovereign act, in all human 
governments. The fact that the Roman coins were the 
coins of the land of Judea, showed that the Romans held 
the soverei<Tnty in Judea ; and the Pharisees, by their ad- 
mission that the Roman empire had imposed their coins 
upon them as the coin of their country, acknowledged that 
they were under the Roman government. And as money 
is the measure and representative of value and property, 
and has been in all ages of the world, from the day that 
Abraham " weighed four hundred shekels of silver current 
money with the merchant" to Ephron for his field and the 
cave of Machpelah,^ to the present time; and as the Lord, 

" (1) Johnxviii, 37. (2) 1 Pet. ii, 22. 13) Gen. xxiii, IS. 



344 CONCLUSION OF THE 

after having had brought to him the coin, the tribute money, 
and hiid had his interrogators to say that it was Cesar's, 
told them to render to Cesar the things that were Cesar's, 
he thereby taught that money, and all it represents, are 
things of Cesar. And as money represents all property, 
and all that relates or pertains to property, to the posses- 
sion, management, enjoym.ent, and disposition of it, they all 
are things that are Cesar's. Hence, tlie Lord, when applied 
to, to divide an inheritance between two brothers, declined,' 
because it was Cesar's and not God's kingdom that that 
work lay in. Hence, too, that apostolic injunction to ren- 
der tribute to whom tribute is due.^ 

When the mother of Zebedee's children wanted the Lord 
to grant that her sons might set at his right hand, and at 
his left hand in his kingdom, and the other ten apostles 
w^ere moved with indignation against James and John on 
account of that request, the Lord called them to him and 
said: "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles [nations] 
exercise dominion over them^ and they that are great exercise 
aiiOiority upon them.'''^ llence, the exercise of dominion 
over the people, and of authority upon them, are things 
that are Cesar's. 

When Pilate asked the Lord if he did not know that he 
had power to crucify him, and power to release him ? the 
Lord did not controvert the fact, but told him that he could 
not have the power unless it were given to him from above.* 
Hence, the power over life and liberty, are things that are 
Cesar's, and arc given to him from above. But he has only 
power to kill the body, and is not able to kill the soul. 
When he kills the body, he has no more that he caH do. 
Hence, the Lord tells christians not to fear him, but to fear 
him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.* 
Hence, also, as Cesar has no power over the soul, he has no 
right to interfere with matters pertaining to the soul; and 
whenever he does, he is guilty of usurpation of the things 
that are God's. Hence, all interference by the civil power 
with matters pertaining to the welfare of the soul — to reli- 
gious matters — is usurpation. 

I have now produced enough (and I must be concise, and 

(1) Luke xii, 13, 14- (4) John xix, 10. 11. 

(2) Rom. xiii, T. (5) Matt, x, 28; Luke xii, 4, 5. 

(3) Matt. XX, 20-25 ; Mark x, 35-42 ; Luke xxii, 24, 25. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 345 

tiot prolix) to show that dominion and authority over the 
people, extending to their lives, liberty and property, in all 
its ramifications, rtre things of Cesar^ given to him of God. 
For the due and faithful discharge of this trust committed 
to him, God holds Cesar, or nationalities, accountable, and 
not christians, either individually or collectively. But as 
this branch does not lay within my present inquiry, I shall 
only state the fact. The duty of christians in or to Cesar, 
or the civil government, is what I am now investigating. 

I will now briefly examine and ascertain what are the 
things that are God's, that we are required to render to 
hfm, as contra-distinguished from things that we must ren- 
der to Cesar. 

*^ Jesus said unto him. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the 
second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self. On those two commandments hang all the law and 
the prophets."^ 

" A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love 
one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one an- 
other. By this shall all men know that yo are my disciples, 
if ye have love one to another. ^'^ 

*' This is my commandment, That ye love one another, 
as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, 
that a man lay down his life for his friends."'^ 

The things that are God's, then, that we are to render to 
him, are, that we love him with all our heart, soul and 
mind; and our neighbors as ourselves. These things in- 
clude the law given by Moses, and the prophets. In addi- 
tion to them, christians are to love one another as the Lord 
loved them, that is, love one another enough to lay their 
lives down for each other, as the Lord laid down his life for 
them. And this love to God, to neighbors, and to chris- 
tians, is to be manifested by acts. Love to God, to neigh- 
bors, (the human family) and to christians, manifested by 
acts, does not intrude upon the things that are Cesar's. 
Hence, rendering to God the things that are God's, does not^ 
conflict with our duty to render to Cesar all that is his. 
The things of this world, life, liberty, property, are things 

(1) Cesar is used as synonymous with the ci/nl government. (3) Johnxiii, 3-1,35. 

(2) Matt, xxii, 37-40 ; see, also, Luke x, 25-28. (4} Jolin xv, 12, 13. 

23 



346 CONCLUSION OF THE 

that are Cesar's ; the things preparatory for, and looking 
to, another and a better world, are God's. 

The power and the glory of the kingdoms of the world 
are delivered to the devil, and to whomsoever he will give 
it, at least, he said so in the presence of the Lord, uncon- 
tradicted by him.^ He did not say the hingdoms of the 
world, as is commonly stated ; but the power and the glory 
of them. It is not material, however, to settle that ques- 
tion. The glory of an Alexander, a Cesar, and a Napoleon, 
I am inclined to .think, was derived from the devil rather 
than from God. 

Shortly before the Lord was arrested, he said, " The 
prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me."^ He 
had committed no crime against the Roman law, and hence 
was not amenable to it ; he had not forfeited his life, nor 
his liberty to it, nor to any law of any kingdom of this 
world. He had neither money nor property. Hence he 
said the prince of this world had nothing in him. And his 
expression goes further. The prince of this world, the 
kingdoms of this world, have nothing in him or his king- 
dom, that is, they have no jurisdiction or right, to interfere 
with either him or his kiugdom. When they do interfere, 
it is usurpation ; and the interference of the kingdoms of 
this world with the kingdom of the Lord, always has been 
injurious or deleterious to it. 

The kings of this world exercise dominion and authority 
over their subjects, but the Lord directed that it should not 
be so in his kingdom ; that whosoever would be great in 
his kingdom, should be a servant, and whosoever would be 
chief, should be a slave, as He came not to be served, but 
to serve.^ The elders or bishops in his kingdom are com- 
manded to take the oversight of the flock, not by con- 
straint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready 
mind, neither as being lord's over God's heritage, but being 
examples to the flock.^ Christ expressly taught, that in 
his kingdom there was no Pope or Father but God ; no lord 
or Master but himself; and that all his disciples were 
brethren.^ 

Hence, the Lord's kingdom is the exact converse of the 

(1) Luke iv, 5, 6. (4) 1 Pet. v, 1-3. 

(2) John xiv, 30. (5) Matt, xxiii, 8-1^. 

(3) Matt. XX, 25-28 ; Mark x, 42-45 ; Luke sxii, 25-23 ; Kew Trans. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 347 

kingdoms of this world. In the kingdoms of this world, 
there are kings, and princes, and lords, who have '•* domin- 
ion" and "authority" over life, liberty, and property, and 
" honor " and " fear '' are " due " them. They are founded 
upon, act and exist by force, physical power, the sword. 
Thou shalt, or shalt not, do this, with the sword raised to 
enforce the command, is their manner of acting in dis- 
charge of their office. They rule by force and fear, and by 
them alone. And God makes them his avengers to execute 
his wrath upon them that do evil.^ In the Lord's kingdom, 
there is no Lord but Christ, and all of his subjects are 
brethren. They all stand upon a democratic equality, in 
his kingdom. The Lord exercises no dominion or authority 
over life, liberty or property; and no coercion, no physical 
power whatever is used, even to the breaking of a bruised 
reed as a spear, in making conquests to his kingdom, nor 
in governing his subjects when conquered and brought un- 
der his sway. Love is the supreme controlling power by 
which he conquers, and by which he governs. All the 
tribute his subjects render him, whether of their services 
or their property, are free gifts, given " not grudgingly or 
of necessity ; for God loves a cheerful giver."^ He freely 
gave himself for them ; and they must freely give them- 
selves to him. AVhen they cease to do so, coercion is not 
used by him to compel them to do their duty, but excision 
from his body, expulsion from his kingdom, is the penalty. 
He governs by " the consent of the governed;" when they 
withdraw their consent, he withdraws from them the bene- 
fits and blessings of his government. 

We have seen that the two classes of government exist 
in this world. And we have seen that their jurisdictions do 
really not conflict. The Lord's people, though in the world, 
are not of it. But they are expressly commanded by the 
Lord, to be subject to the powers that exist in this world; 
that they are ordained of God, and whosoever resisteth 
them, resisteth the ordinance of God. They are informed, 
however, that they are not a terror to good works, but to 
the evil ; that if they do that which is good, they shall have 
praise of the powers that be, which has always proved to 
be true when fairly tested, ever since it was uttered. 
Christians are therefore commanded to pay tribute or taxes 

(1) Rom. xiii, 4. (2) 2 Cor. ix, 7. 



348 • CONCLUSION OF THE 

to these powers that be ; to render to all their dues of trib- 
bute, cnatoiii, fear and honor. ^ ^-i^hey are also commanded 
by the Lord to submit to every ordinance of man for his 
sake; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto gov- 
ernors or subordinate magistrates, as unto them that are 
sent by the supreme powder for the punishment of evil-doers, 
and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will 
of God, that with well-doinr/ christians may put to silmce 
the ignorance of foolish men. To honor all men: to love 
the brotherhood : to fear God : and to honor the king, or 
supreme power." And to render to Cesar all the things 
that are Cesar's, which, we have seen, are life, liberty and 
property. 

The Lord also commands his people to " abstain froni 
fleshy lusts,"" which, he informs us, produce the following, 
among other, vvorks of the flesh : hatred, variance, emula- 
tions, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murder, 
drunkenness, revelings, and such like* And that if they 
have bitter envying and strife in their hearts, about aboli- 
tionism or anything else, to glory not, and lie not against 
the truth. For that wisdom descends not from above, but 
is earthly, sensual, and devilish, or devil-like. For ^Yhere 
envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil 
-work.'' 

The law of liberty in and by which the christian kingdom 
is governed, is perfect, as all the Lord's works are perfect. 
It is as well adapted to one. form of government of the 
kingdoms of this world as to another. There are various 
forms of human governments — kingdoms of this world — as 
despotisms, limited or constitutional monarchies, aristocra- 
cies, oligarchies, republics, and democracies. The christian 
kingdom is as well adapted to one form as to another, and 
can exist as well in one as in another. It submits alike to 
all, and leaves to all the control and management of all 
the tilings of this world, and interferes with the control of 
none. Whenever it does, it is guilty of usurpation, and 
the history of eighteen hundred years has proved, that 
whenever and wherever it did, it has received injury by it. 
Whenever it does so, it becomes anti-Christ. We have 
been in the habit of calling one great religious body anti- 

(1) P.om. xiii, l-r. (3) 1 Pet. ii. 11. (5) James iii, l-t-lS, 

(2) 1 Pet. ii, l3-ir. (4) Gal. t. 17-21. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 349 

Christ; but all others who interfere with the afl'airs of 
State, with the control of the kingdoms of this world, are 
anti-Christs too. TJie "mystery of iniquity" is ambitiofi, 
pride and love of power. They have been the foundation 
and prime cause of all iniquity from the period of Satan's 
fall till now. That mystery, or secret source of iniquity, 
began to work in Paul's day, and only the pagan power of 
Rome then hindered it, and he said would continue to hin- 
der it till it was taken out of the way ; and then that law- 
less and wicked one would be revealed.^ History proves 
this to be true. But because one great anti-Christ was 
thus built up, and has existed ever since, it does not prove 
that others, who, from ambition, pride, and love of power, 
acquire and exercise control of the things of the king- 
doms of this world, are not anti-Christs too. On the con- 
trary, it proves that they are anti-Christs. John told 
christians not to believe every spirit, but to try them, 
whether they be from God. Every spirit, he says, " that 
does not confess Jesus," acknowledge him and obey his 
laws, "is not from God: and this is that spirit of anti- 
Christ, which you have heard that it comes, and noiu is in 
the world already. '•• * -'"^ They are of the world ; 
therefore they i<peah from the ivorld^^ from that stand -point, 
" and the world hearkens to them. We [apostles] are of 
God : he who knows God, hearkens to us; he who is not of 
God, hearkens not to us. By this we know the spirit of 
truth, and the spirit of error,"^ which he had just before 
said was the spirit of anti-Christ. And wherever we have 
that spirit now, it is the spirit of anti-Christ, whether it be 
found in the great anti christian body, or in a small one. 

And whenever a kingdom of this world interferes with 
religious matters — with matters pertaining to the kingdom 
of the Lord — it is guilty of usurpation, and becomes a 
dragon or a beast, great or small, as the case may be, such 
as are described in the Apocalypse. Hence, if the aboli- 
tion theory was true, (which it is not) tliat slavery is a sin, 
the administration now in power in our Government, and 
that has control of our Government, by undertaking (as it 
has undertaken, and is now prosecuting the undertaking,) 
to eradicate that sin by the war now being prosecuted, 
thereby becomes, for the time being, a dragon or a beast of 

(1) 2 Thes. ii, 6-8, (2) 1 John iv, 1-6, New Translation. 



350 CONCLUSION OF THE 

the Apocalypse, small as yet, it is true, but it may grow 
into *'a great dragon" for all we know, if we allow it to 
grow. It has no right or authority, from the christian 
Scriptures, to prosecute such a work ; but, on the contrary, 
they teach that it has not. The Constitution of the United 
States does not give it such power, but expressly reserves 
the slavery question, and all other domestic questions, to 
the States respectively, or to the people of the States.^ 

On the other hand, as slavery is not a sin, and is purely 
a political question, and hence belongs exclusively to the 
kingdoms of this world to control, manage and settle, the 
States respectively in our form of government being the 
kingdoms that have control of it, the various religious de- 
nominations that have, by the action of their ecclesiastical 
bodies, assumed to control the question, and the various 
very wise and very 'pious preachers, and editors, and socie- 
ties, and corporations, religious and educational, among us 
of the free States, where slavery does not exist, that have 
assumed, and are assuming, to interfere with, control, and 
manage the question, are all thereby usurping what belongs 
to Cesar, and violating the express commands of the Lord 
to them, and hence are anti-Christs. John, the harbinger 
of the Lord, said, that " he that is of the earth is earthly, 
and speaketh of the earth J'^ They speak of the earth, and 
hence, according to the harbinger, they are earthly, from 
which the slide is very easy into becoming " sensual and 
devilish."^ Were Paul here now, he would tell us of them, 
as he did the ancient christians, that " I have often told 
you, and now tell you even weeping, that many walk as the 
enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction, 
whose god is their appetites, whose glory is in their shame, 
tvJio mind eartJdy tliings.^''^ He would also say that "they 
that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh."^ 
And he would say to those preachers and editors, that " the 
world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world ''f " be 
followers together of me,"^ if you assume to be preachers 
and teachers in the kingdom of Christ, and -'set your affec- 
tions on things above, not on things on the earth."^ Were 
John, the beloved disciple, here, he would say : " Love not 

(1) Const, art. x, amendments. (5) Rom. viii, 5. 

(2) John iii, 31. • (6) Gal. vi, 14. 
(^) James iii, 15. (T) Phil, iii, IT. 
(4) Phil, iii, IS, 19, Kew Translation, (,8) Col. iii, 2. 



DISCUSSION OP SLAVERY. 351 

the worlds neither tlie tliinys that are in the world. If any 
man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 
For all that is in the world, * ^ * ^ is of the world."^ 
But Paul and John are both here in the inspired writings 
th«j left us, and now say these things, and these men 
hearken not to them, because they are not of God. 

I will give a few specimens of the many thousand proofs 
that could be adduced, of the way and manner in which 
these bodies and these men usurp " the things that are Ce- 
sar's." I cite some of those that have transpired among 
our denomination — the Christian — simply because I have 
those at hand, and it is more convenient to me to cite them 
than others. Similar ones could easily be furnished, how- 
ever, as to other denominations of christians ; and hence 
I hope that none of them will feel slighted and take um- 
brage, because I do not cite instances from them. 

The Indiana Christian Missionary Society met in semi- 
annual meeting, at Rushville, Indiana, May 20th, 1862; 
Elder E. Goodwin, President, in the chair. Ovid Butler 
and B. F. Reeve, the majority of the committee having the 
matter in charge, reported the following resolutions, which 
were adopted by the Society, the first after some debate, 
and with one dissenting voice ; the others mem. con. and 
unanimously : 

" RESOLUTIONS. 

^' Hesolved, That in the opinion of this meeting, sympathy 
to the civil government is a christian duty, subordinate only 
to sympathy and fidelity to Christ Jesus, the Lord. That 
loyalty to the civil government involves the obligation to 
aid and assist in the necessary efforts to protect, sustain 
and defend it against agressions from without, or treason 
and rebellion from within. 

" Resolved, That those of our fellow citizens, and espe- 
cially our Christian brethren, who have volunteered to de- 
fend our Government and Union against treason and rebel- 
lion, deserve, and shall receive, our approbation, our sym- 
pathy, and our prayers, and that the Board of Managers 
of this Association be instructed to furnish to them, so far 
as they may have means and opportunity to do so, such spi- 
ritual food and consolation as their circumstances require. 

(1) 1 John ii, 15, 16- 



352 CONCLUSION OP THE 

'^Resolved, That the exigences of the times, the present 
and immediately future issues, in this conflict with rebellion, 
admonish us that we should seek humbly, earnestly, and 
trustingly, of the great Head of the church for wisdom, to 
determine, and for strength to do, what God in his provi- 
dence requires of us, as citizens and as disciples of the 
Lord Jesus. 

'' Resolved, That the Board of Managers be instructed to 
push forward the work of the Society, both in procuring 
means, and in missionary operations, to the full extent that 
it shall be found practicable to do. 

*' Resolved, That hereafter the name of this association 
shall be, " The Indiana State Christian Missionary Society.'^ 

This does pretty well for a society whose sole avowed 
object, is the promotion of the Lord's cause, and the ex- 
tension of his kingdom ; three strong, earnest resolutions 
for Cesar, and one little weak one for the Lord. " Out of 
the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh ;"^ and 
where our treasure is, there will our heart be also :^ and, as 
the treasure of this society is political abolitionism, its 
heart is there ; and out of the abundance of its heart, its 
mouth spoke as above. While it was changing its name, 
however, honesty and fair dealing with the public required 
that it should have taken a more truthful appellation — '' The 
Indiana State Political Missionary Society." 

The same society convened again, in semi-annual meet- 
ing, at Lafayette, Indiana, on the 14th day of May, 1863. 
I cut the following from its published proceedings : 

"The following preamble and resolutions were offered by 
Bro. H. Z. Leonard : 

"Whereas, Our country is involved in the calamities of 
civil war, inaugurated by the rebellion of a part of the 
Southern States of our Union, and whereas, God at times 
uses the sword in the hand of the civil power to maintain 
equity and justice among the nations of earth, and whereas^ 
man but renders obedience to God when he renders obe- 
dience to the legally constituted authorities ; therefore, 

" Resolved, That we, in proper capacity, as a Christian 
Missionary Society of the State of Indiana, do hereby de- 

Cl) Matt, xii, 34 . Luke vi, 45. ^2) Matt, vi, 21. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 353 

clare our unwavering;; allegiance to, and our unqualified sup- 
port of, 'the government under which we live. 

'■^Resolved, That, recognizing our chief ruler as the min- 
ister of God, ' a revenger to execute wrath upon him that 
doeth evil/ we will render him a cheerful support with 
earnest prayer to the great Head of the church, that he 
may be guided by that wisdom that cometh from above. 

" JResolved, That we will cheerfully submit to all legally 
constituted authorities, both civil and military, to the ex- 
press intent that we may not only be loyal citizens, but 
that we may also see the present rebellion crushed speedily, 
and our government triumph over every foe. 

^'Resolved, That'we assure and reassure our brave and 
noble soldiers in the field, that they have our warmest sym- 
pathies and constant prayers, and shall have our material 
and spiritual aid whenever it is possible to bestow it. 

" After some discussion as to the propriety of entertain- 
ing such resolutions in a missionary meeting, they were 
made the order of business for 2 o'clock P. M., when the 
society took a recess until that hour. 



" 2 o'clock p. M. 
"The society convened and resumed the consideration of 
Bro. Leonard's resolutions, and after some further discus- 
sion, Bro. Bartholomew moved to strike out of tlie first res- 
olution the words, 'In proper capacity as a Christian Mis- 
sionary Society of the State of Indiana,' which was done, 
and the resolutions were then adopted without a dissenting 
vote." 

It seepas that there was' enough compunction of con- 
science and regard for truth then in the society, to prevent 
it from saying that this was done "in proper capacity as a 
christian missionary society;" and they struck that falsehood 
out ; and then they gulped it down " without a dissenting 
vote," though their previous vote striking it out, had said 
that it was not proj^er in a christian society. 

I also copy the following from the official proceedings : 

" On call for members, the following brethren became an- 
nual members by the payment of one dollar each : 

0. A. Burgess, Indianapolis, Ind ^... ^1 00 



354 CONCLUSION OF THE 

J. M. Tilford, Indianapolis, Ind 1 00 

Wm. Brothers, Illinois 1 00 

B. Crist, Pleasant Grove, Ind 1 00 

C. G. Bartholomew, Rockville, Ind 1 00 

H. Z. Leonard, Lafayette, Ind 1 00 

James Hadsell, Spencerville, Ind 1 00 

George Campbell, Groves, Ind 1 00 

John Campbell, Oxford, Ind 1 00 

Lizza Sims, Laporte, Ind 1 00 

Frank Closser, Laporte, Ind 1 00 

D. J. McPeak, Culver's Station, Ind 1 00 

R. Faurot, iSewville, Ind 1 00 

Wm. Grigsby, Logansport, Ind 1 00 

H. Z. Leonard presented a communication from Bro. 

Jont. H. Henry, containing |16 55, contributed 
as follows : 

By the Church in Martinsville 7 30 

" Lower Liberty 3 90 

" Major's School-house 4 35 

By C. Davidson, for annual membership 1 00 

A communication was received from the Church in 

Indianapolis, with a contribution of 30 00 

Total $61 55 

Which also recommend a number of brethren as Messen- 
gers to the meeting, of whom brethren J. B. New, 0. But- 
ler, J. M. Tilford, E. Goodwin, 0. A. Burgess, appeared 
and took seats in the meeting/' 

There are more than 50,000 members of the Christian 
Church in Indiana ; and yet this is the beggarly number 
taking part in this Society, in May last. Sixty-one dollars 
contributed, and thirty-two of it from Indianapolis, with 
men sent to manage the Society. These facts furnish food 
for reflection. Does converting a christian missionary so- 
ciety into a political conclave of abolitionists, benefit or 
injure the cause of Christ? is a question that each one 
must reflect upon and answer for himself. The above facts 
and figures show that it has pretty much destroyed that 
Society. How much that has injured the cause of the Lord 
every one must decide for himself. 

The Oiiio Christian Missionary Society had not been 



DISCUSSION OE SLAVERY. 355 

troubled with these factionists ; but having conquered the 
Indiana Society, and by conquering it had destroyed it, they 
attacked the Ohio Society in its annual meeting convened 
at Shelby, Ohio, on the 26th of May, 1863. A brother 
Lampherc introduced the same resolutions introduced and 
passed at Lafayette, and copied above, with the false clause 
" in proper capacity as a Christian Missionary Society of 
the State of Ohio," retained in them. After some debate 
they were passed, with the false clause above quoted in 
them. Our esteemed friend, brother Goodwin, in his pub- 
lication of the transaction, in his Record of June 9th, 1863, 
said : '* Bro. Frame remarked that if they would convert the 
meeting into a mass meeiingy he would go for the resolu- 
tions. To this no attention was paid,^ the question was 
put and the resolutions passed, without a single negative 
vote. I could but notice how a few persons kept their eyes 
on Bro. Franklin. Before the vote was taken, he made a 
few remarks, stating that he was opposed to introducing 
such resolutions into a missionary meeting, but since they 
were to be voted on, he would vote for them, for they ex- 
pressed the sentiments of his heart, and he did vote for 
them." 

The stragetic tactics by which they took the Ohio Mis- 
sionary Society by assault, greatly gratified them ; and 
particularly, the adroit manner in which they caught brother 
Franklin in their toils, and, as they thought, took him cap- 
tive at their will, gave them as much joy as those who en- 
deavored to ensnare the Lord about paying tribute to Cesar 
would have felt, had they succeeded. "A few persons kept 
their eyes on Bro. Franklin," and brother Goodwin " could 
but notice " it. What set them to watching Franklin ? and 
how came brother Goodwin to be so observant of the watch- 
ing ? Were they the conspirators ? There were but " few " 
of them, it seems, which I have no doubt is strictly true. 
Had they been "told, as they should have been, that the 
Lord's command was to render to Cesar the things that are 
Cesar's, and to God the things that are God's; that Cesar 
had no rights there ; but that that body and its action and 
services, belonged to God and not to Cesar at all, they 
would have been foiled as the Lord foiled those similar 
pious patriots who attempted to ensnare him, and inviegle 

(1) These italics are mine. 



356 CONCLUSION OF THE 

liim into the expresdon of an ojnnion vpon a i^olitkal ques- 
tions^ which he did not then do, nor never did. 

I must spare space here for what brother Franklin said 
in his American Christian Ilevieio, of July 7th, 18<j3, about 
this transaction, and reserve what I have to say further till 
I shall have cited another case or two : 

"Tlie propriety of introducing worldly questions — mere 
worldly questions of any sort — into the pulpit, into the 
church, missionary meetings, and religious literature, no 
matter how important, is now a matter of no small magni- 
tude, and by no means settled with many good people. Our 
mind is made up on this matter. Our course is settled. 
We are satisfied, too, that the course of a large proportion 
of the christian brotherhood is also settled. When v/e can 
not preach without dragging into our preacliing the issues of 
the world, we shall not preach at all. When we can not 
publish a religious paper, devoted exclusively to reliyion, 
without making it eI worldly engine, to advocate the issues 
of the world, we shall not publish a religious paper at all. 
When we can not belong to a church, or a missionary so- 
ciety, and attend the meetings without the issues of the 
world being forced in, no matter how great they are, nor 
how momentous, we shall consider the church or the society 
so carnalized, perverted from its gracious and benevolent 
purpose, if it can not be reformed, unworthy of support or 
advocacy. We mean what we are saying. We know that 
we are right in this matter, that the kingdom of Christ is 
not of this woi'ld; that it must be kept distinct from the 
world, and attend to its own affairs. Let the ministry be 
devoted to its great work, the church to the work to which 
the Lord has sanctified it, and the missionary society to its 
own work, and all will go well ; but whoever attempts to per- 
vert them, to turn them aside from ihii'w professed purpose ^ 
and make them engines of the world, no matter how great 
nor how important the worldly cause, will destroy the cause 
of the Lord to the extent of his influence. Nothing has 
saved us from disruption, in almost all sections of the 
country, only our keeping the issues of the world out of 
church, and nothing will do this in the future. There will 
be constantly questions of the world arising, issues forming 

(1) Ante, pp. 338, 3i0, U\. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 357 

and complications, whicli will take their course in the world, 
but which, if dragged into the church, would keep up per- 
petual schism, strife and worldly discussions. 

" If any man in this country has become such a fanatic 
that he thinks a man can not be loyal .to the civil govern- 
ment, in the highest and fullest sense, a Union man of the 
first order, and a true friend to the law and the executives 
of the law, without introducing the issues of the country 
into the pulpit, religious publications, the church, and the 
missionary society, he needs enlightenment to make him a 
sound Union man, in the church or anywhere else. The 
masons meet from time to time, in their different meetings, 
pass no resolutions, discuss no questions, and have no ac- 
tion touching the troubles of the country. What n:!an of 
intelligence charges them with disloyalty, simply because, 
in their Masonic meetings, they attend simply to Masonry '^ 
What mason thinks of such a thing as that he jeopardizes 
his loyalty simply because he spent a few hours in a masonic 
meeting, without saying anythirig about the great issues 
of the country? All we ask is, that when christians meet 
in their capacity, as christians, to attend to religious mat- 
ters, that they, for the time being, dismiss from their minds 
the affairs of the world, and attend to things of the king- 
dom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. 

*' The brethren in Indiana, or a few of them., have been 
passing resolutions touching the worldly upheavings of the 
country, because other denominations have been doing so, 
to popularize the State Missionary Society. They did this 
a year ago, and have lately done so again, but the almost 
entire absence of all account of missionar3^ work, through 
(heir Society, and of money for the work, furnish an unfa- 
vorable commentary on the success and popularity gained 
through this means. At our late meeting in Shelby, Ohio, 
we were bored all one afternoon with a string of resolutions 
touching the ti'oubles of the country, and some gassy, ful- 
some, and weak speeches. We had no objection to the 
sentiment, so far as there was any, in these speeches, nor 
to the resolutions. The resolutions were good enough, any 
where proper for tliem, but had certainly no business in 
that meeting The speeches were oid of place, and ioo weak 
to have been interesting in a political meeting or a war 
meeting. All in all, it was a very flat affair — a great letting 



358 CONCLUSION OF THE 

down for such a meeting — and will do a vast amount of 
harm to the State Missionary Society. 

" We were well satisfied before the resolutions came to a 
vote, that a majority would have been in favor of throwing 
the whole affair out of the meeting, though probably none 
had any objection to the sentiment contained in the resolu- 
tions. Of this we now have no doubt. But we were not 
present when the resolutions were introduced, and saw that 
there was no excitement about the matter, or interest in 
it any way, only to gain a point in getting it into the meet- 
ing, and we explained to the audience that we considered 
it letting down, and entirely aside from our work, but that 
as it was now introduced, and as the sentiments in the reso- 
lutions were good, we thought it best to pass the resolu- 
tions, and let the world know that the movers in the little 
affair were loyal men. The question was put, and the reso- 
lutions were passed without any dissent. 

" If the present trouble were the only thing of the kind 
that would be likely to rise, we would let it pass unnoticed. 
But, knowing the mischief that must result from such a 
precedent, we now give notice, that if anything of the kind 
shall be introduced into the General Missionary Meeting, 
or the State Missionary Society, again, when we are pres- 
ent, we shall make an effort to have it tnrown out. We 
deem it useless to give our money and influence for these 
societies, if they are to be carnalized, made worldly en- 
gines, and turned aside /rom religious purposes. When we 
want political resolutions, we will attend political meetings ; 
when we want to hear a political speech, we will go and 
hear some of the regular political, speakers, who can make 
a political speech ; when we want to hear a war speech, we 
prefer to hea- some of the generals, or great war men, who 
can make a war speech, and not the spouting of preachers, 
who generally keep out of the reach of bullets ; and when 
we want the secular news, we go to the Commercial or 
Gazette, and not to starved religious papers, containing a 
little budget of war and secular news, rehashed and sent 
out ten or fifteen days after it had appeared in the secular 
papers, and everybody had seen it." 

The same men ran the North-western Christian Univer- 
sity into party politics too. At the annual meeting of the 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 359 

Board of Directors in July, 1862, after a preamble and 
preliminary resolution, to prepare the way, came this, 
which was passed, myself and one other member voting 
against it : 

" Resolved, That while we deny that any action of this 
board, or the faculty of the institution, has been either re- 
ligiously or politically partizan in its character, we rejoice 
to be able to state, and for the first time we now state, that 
the members of this board and of the faculty of the insti- 
tution, are true and loyal to the constitution and govern- 
ment of the United States, and warmly and deeply sympa- 
thize with the soldiers of the Union who are engaged in the 
suppression of the present wicked rebellion." 

The University is limited in its charter to teaching liter- 
ature, the sciences, and the morals of the bible ; prohibit- 
ing sectarian tenets and dogmas from being taught ; and 
though most of its Directory and Faculty were abolition- 
ists from its organization, and were inculcating their tenets 
as it is their nature to do, yet there had been no corporate 
act favoring any party or party tenets, political or religious, 
up to the time of the passage of that resolution. I know 
this to be so, because I was a member of the Board from 
the time of the incorporation of the Institution. This reso- 
lution, after stating this fact, says that now " for the first 
time," the corporation breaks over the boundary, and com- 
mits the Institution to the party politics of the day. 

There is not more than one-fifth of the stock owned by 
abolitionists ; and yet they have had entire control of the 
Board from the organization of the Institution, and still 
have. There is not more than ten per cent, of the brother- 
hood in the State abolitionized ; and hence nine-tenths of 
them are kept from taking an interest in, and sustaining 
the Institution, because it is abolitionized. 

A few remarks now upon these matters ; and first of 
loyalty. 

Loyalty is not a proper word to use among us while we 
are a free people, and while our free government, formed 
by the fathers of the revolution, remains to us. But as 
they chrunge the free government we had, into a despotism, 
they change the terms used. 

Loyalty, is, " firm and faithful adherence to a prince^ 

Loyal, is, " obedient, true to the prince,'' 



360 CONCLUSION OF THE 

LoijaUif, is, " with fidelity, with true adherence to a JcingJ^ 

Loyalist^ is, '' one who professes uncommon adherence to 
his king J" 

Hence the term applies to a jjerson, and not to a free con- 
stitidional goDernment. Hence the recent constant use 
of the term loyal with its variations, hy those who claim that 
the President and his administration, are the government. 
And they all agree and insist that they are loyal to the 
government, meaning the President, and insist that all must 
be so. Mr. Jefferson, the great father and expounder of 
our free government, gave the true phrase, which expresses 
the idea, and performs the office in our free government, 
as -we had it, that loyal and its variations do in monarch- 
ies. That phrase is a frie^id to the constitution. That is 
the appropriate term in our free government, as we had it. 
Our allegiance is due to the constitution; not to the Presi- 
dent. Our official oaths are to support tlie constitution; 
not to support the President nor tlire govermneiit. We can 
not be loyal in the literal sense of the term, and remain 
free ; for loyalty is fealty, allegiance to a person, a prince : 
but we can be friends to the constitution, and support the 
constitution, and still be free. For by the constitution, 
the sovereignty is vested in the people, who retained the 
power in it to modify it or change it. 

Words are things. The term loyal is used to accustom 
the public mind to the tldng it represents, fealty, fidelity to 
a person. See the oaths that have been framed and en- 
forced to support the government, &c. 

In the Rushville resolutions, "loyalty to the civil govern- 
ment" is the phrase; not to the constitution. In the La- 
fayette resolutions, " we do hereby declare unwavering al- 
legiance to, and our unqualified support of, the government," 
not of the constitution, is what they say. In the Ohio 
resolutions, they made the Christian Missionary Society of 
the State of Ohio declare unwavering allegiance to, and 
unqualified support of, the government, not allegiance to, 
and support of, the constitution. I doubt very much 
whether the men who concocted these resolutions, and en- 
gineered them through, would publicly solemnly pledge 
their unwavering allegiance to, and unqualified support of, 
(he constitution ; for they have denounced it as a league 
with hell and a covenant with death, for years. And by the 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 361 

sophistry of tlie term government for the constitidion, and 
loyalty, which means fidelity to a person instead of fidelity 
to the constitution^ they are trying to make the impression 
that they really are patriots ; and not only that, but that all 
who see their sophistry and will not be caught with their 
guile, are traitors ! 

The Ohio Christian Missionary Society, if it was a chris- 
tian body, owed no allegiance to Cesar at all ; but to the 
Lord, and to the Lord alone. The men who composed the 
body, as men, owed allegiance to their respective constitu- 
tions. State and National. But the society owed no alle- 
giance to Cesar at all; and any interference by Cesar with 
the society, or its affairs, would have been a usurpation by 
him. But when the society, in proper capacity as a society, 
declared its unwavering allegiance to Cesar, and its unqual- 
ified support of Cesar, it changed its allegiance from the 
Lord to Cesar, rebelled against the Lord, " seceded " from 
his kingdom, and " annexed " itself to " the kingdoms of 
this world" — to Cesar and his fortunes. For the Lord ex- 
pressly says they can not serve two masters — God and 
Cesar.^ For which may the good Lord have mercy upon 
it, and bring it to repentance and reformation — which would 
be a change again of its allegiance. 

In the University, resolutions, which were the first they 
got up, the w^ord constitution was retained, but loyalty and 
government were also put in. But ever afterwards the con- 
stitution was left out entirely. 

The Lafayette and the Ohio resolutions recognize the 
chief ruler, to wit, Lincoln, as the minister of God, a re- 
venger to execute wrath, and tender their cheerful support 
to him in that w^ork. Christians, and a christian society, 
tendering their services as hangmen ! Is not that a pretty 
spectacle ? 

Because the Lord commands christians to be subject to 
the higher powers, to rulers, to kings, to every ordinance 
of man, these men affect now to be extremely patriotic; 
but being subject to rulers, and submitting to the powers 
that be, is a very different thing from thrusting themselves 
in, and tendering their services as the executioners of these 
avengers. And their conduct shows that vengeance impels 
their action rather than patriotism ; and much more than 

~~~~ ~ (1) Matt, vi, 24. 

24 



302 CONCLUSION OF TOE 

the love of all men, that dwells in every christian heart, im- 
pels them. Submitting to rulers, and being the willing active 
instruments of rulers, are very different things ; and more so, 
when rulers are engaged in a bad cause, and endeavoring 
to affect an improper object. Subjection and obedience is 
one thing; active participation is another and a difierent 

The only divinely authorized mention of kings, and 
rulers, and men in authority, in the christian bodies and 
congregations, is the authority and direction given to pray 
for them in common with all men, that christians may lead 
a quiet and peaceahU life in all godliness and honesty. 
We are commanded to pray for them as men, and not lor 
their measures as rulers; but that they may be bod-fearmg 
men, which, if they be, they will rule in righteousness, and 
if they do so rule, christians subject to them, can lead a 
quiet and feaceahle life. As christians are commanded to 
pray for them for that object, it clearly indicates what kind 
of prayers are to be made for them. But abolitionists 
pray not for the rulers as men; that they may be (jod- 
fearing and rule in righteousness; but for the measures oi 
the rulers, for their abolition programme to be carried out, 
and tender their services as avengers and executioners. 
"Now the fruit of righteousness is sotvn m peace, by them 
who practice peace.''^ "Blessed are the W^' for they 
shall inherit the earth. Blessed are the merciful ;_[not those 
who want to be avengers] ; for they shall obtain mercy 
How will it be with the unmerciful? "Blessed are the 
peacemakers; for they shall be called the childeen of 
God "2 Peace men, according to these pious abolitionists, 
are traitors. The Lord says, however, that they are tae 
children of God. " Doubtless," says brother Goodwin, 
" many will be much pleased on reading brother Lucas 
declaration in favor of our National Union ; still their joy 
would have been considerably increased, had he said he was 
in favor of prosecuting the war, with all the means and 
forces at the command of the government, until the rebel- 
lion is effectually and forever subdued."^ How merciful! 
Of course brother Goodwin will obtain mercy. How meek, 
mild, soft and gentle! Of course he wilHn herit the earth. 

g; 5S iJiX^ew Trans. fl Sl^J^n^ord, May 12tb, 1863. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 353 

As to the peacemaker part, I express no opinion. But be- 
ing m favor of the National Union is not'the thing; that 
wi 1 not do. The prosecution of this civil war is the essen- 

whl^^7 ?f ' '" "''°'"'°" P'^'y =«"^ «°'-='ls, and without 
whch loyalty can not exist! Here is abolition morals, 
piety, and loyalty, all m a nutshell. The war must be 
prosecuted to free the negroes and take vevgeance on their 
masters thea- w.ves, and children ; and the National Union 
smmatenal. These scribes and Pharisees ought to be 
told, as the Lord told those scribes and Pharisees of his day 
who brought to him a woman taken in adultery, in the very' 

sto;e J 1 er "? "''"""Af. ^-"""S y°"' !«' '"■" fi'-st cast a 
stone at her; and if their consciences are not "seared 

a^^ay one by one, as those ancient ones did from the pres- 
ence of the Lord. "But if ye forgive not men ?he r 
fer.?.fr,'rf«--^-'".y°»'- Father forgive your trespas- 
T f,;»l f am .anxious to have my trespasses forgilen, 

\!fl T'^ *""" «f''' ^"""«« *at the rebels of the 
bouth have done, as well as those that the abolitionists have 

n a";-- "fn ' "'""'" ^'r,,*^ *'°S« *^* -«ke fl ' 
peace , follow peace with all men,"^ and " seek peace 
and pursue it;'- hence, I can not work up to the aboS 
programme either of morality, piety, or loyalty. "For 
he hat will love life and see good days, let him Zfrainh^ 
wngue from evil, and a, lips that they speak no guUe: let 
him eschew evil and do good: let him' seik peace and pur! 
! K <: } ^b»'"'<^n"^ts obeyed this passage, we would 
not have had our present troubles. \Vere they now o 
commence obeying it, it would greatly help to save us from 
the wreck and ruin into which our people and government 
are plunging deeper and deeper every day. May the good 

im'en '° """'"^ "''°" "'' ""'' '"'" '"' "'''* ^'"■ 
I have, up to this point, considered christians as beino- 
ho governed. In our heretofore free country, (alas! not 
so any longer; at least abolitionists are trying hard to pre- 
ven Its being so any longer,) christians, as citizens, exer- 
cised their equal portion of the sovereignty; hence it is 

W Matt. Ti,. 15. (6) ipet. iii, 11. 



364 CONCLUSION OF THE 

proper that I consider their rights and duties as christians, 
and as citizens of a free government. 

In this position, in exercising their franchises as free 
American citizens at the ballot box, and in the discussion 
and determination of public measures, they are properly 
exercising the functions of Cesar. They each stand as a 
sovereign, and they are accountable to God for their conduct, 
as all Cesars are accountable to God. If they rule in right- 
eousness, they will be blessed of God ; if they rule in un- 
righteousness, he will surely visit them, as he has hereto- 
fore visited all unrighteous Cesars. They occupy the po- 
sition here, that christian kings occupy in monarchies. 
They are limited sovereigns, limited in their powers by the 
constitutions, State and National ; and to discharge their 
functions as Cesars, righteously, they must be guilty of no 
usurpations of things beyond their chartered rights, privi- 
leges and franchises. As our States are sovereignties, and 
have retained to themselves and their people, all the sov- 
ereign powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution of the United States, the people of the States, 
tespectively, have no right to interfere with the business 
■and affairs of other States any more than they have, of 
other nations ; and when they do, they are guilty of usur- 
pation, and of governing unrighteously. The Golden Rule 
is the proper rule for the people of the States to govern 
their political conduct by, as to the other States and the 
people thereof; and certainly christians, when acting as 
Cesars, can cheerfally govern their political conduct to- 
wards their co- States, by that rule. And applying that to 
the question of domestic slavery, we in Indiana desire to 
settle and determine that question for ourselves, and do not 
want Kentuckians or Tennesseeans to settle it for us ; 
hence we should cheerfully yield to Kentuckians and Ten- 
nesseeans what we would that they should yield to us, and 
let them settle and determine the question of domestic 
slavery for themselves, and not attempt to settle it for 
them. The control of the question whether the States 
shall or shall not have the domestic institution of slavery, 
is not delegated to the United States Government; and 
hence, all attempts by that government to control it, is 
sheer usurpation, and political iniquity. And christian 
Cesars who perpetrate that iniquity, will be held accounta- 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 365 

ble by God, ns lie holds all Cesars accountable ; that is, by 
visiting his tvrafli and vengeance upon them in this world. 
All Cesars are punished in this world ; while the Lord's 
punishment, for those Avho reject his kingdom, and sin 
against him, is in a future state of existence. 

I have not space to cite from the Bible the proofs of this, 
and to show how God deals with Cesars ; with the govern- 
ments of this world; and it does not lay particularly within 
my field in the present inquiry. Hence, I shall not go into 
it. A portion of the people, both in the slave States and 
in the free States, originally a very small portion in each, 
made use of slavery as a Iqyqy and pretext to bring about 
a dissolution of our Union. Falsehood and misrepresenta- 
tion, in each portion of the Union, of the people, their in- 
stitutions, habits, and intentions, in the other portion of the 
Union, were the means used to sever the ties of fraternal 
feeling, and sow hatred and variance in their place. As 
they succeeded in their work, they increased in strength, 
and in intensity of action. For the last six or eight or ten 
years, torrents of falsehoods and misrepresentations have 
been poured out in both sections against the other, a disso- 
lution of the Union has been effected, and a most gigantic 
and horrible civil war has raged for more than two years. 
I have in this book treated of the errors we have been 
guilty of in the free States, and have not spoken of the 
great and grievous errors that have been committed by the 
people of the slave States, because that did not lie in ray 
field of inquiry. I can not sum up and close this branch 
of my subject better than to quote from my namesake, the 
prophet Jeremiah, what he spoke by inspiration, to and of 
the Jewish people, w^he'n they were in the terrible condition 
that we are now in, and have been for four or five years. 
It is equally true of us as a people, both North and South, 
(for I can not bear to think of, or contemplate ourselves 
any otherwise than as one people,) as it was of the Jewish 
people at the time Jeremiah spoke it. And it is also one of 
the proofs of the manner in which God deals with Cesars : 

" Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain 
of tears, that I miglit weep day and night for the slain of 
the daughter of my people ! Oh that I had in the wilder- 
ness a lodging-place of wayfaring men, that I might leave 
my people, and go from them I For they be all adulterers, 



366 CONCLUSION OF THE 

an assembly of treacherous men. And they bend their 
tongueWkQ they bo^y for lies; but they are not valiant for 
the truth upon the earth ; for they proceed from evil to evil^ 
and they know not me, saith the Lord. Take ye heed 
every one of his neighbor, and trust ye not in any brother ; 
for every brother v,-ill utterly siqyplant^ and every neighbor 
will tvalk ivith slanders. And they will deceive every one 
his neighbor^ and ivill not speak the truth : they have taught 
their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit 
iniquity. Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; 
through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the Lord. 
Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts, Behold, I will melt 
them, and /?'^/ them; [alas I we are being melted and tried 
now] for how shall I do for the daughter of my people? 
Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it sp)eaketh deceit; one 
speaketh peaceably to his neighbor with his mouth, hut in 
heart he layetli his wait. Shall I not visit them for these 
things f saith the Lord : Shall not my soul be avenged on 
such a nation as thisT'^ 

Lord ! give us repentance and reformation, that thy 
avenging hand m.ay be stayed, and thy wrath withdrawn 
om us. 

PREJUDICE OF COLOR. 

Abolitionists have, for years, talked much about the prej- 
udice of color, and insist that it must be broken dovvn and 
eradicated, and that whites must mingle and associate with 
blacks as they do with whites, socially and politically. 

This, like almost every other abolition tenet, is untrue. 
There is no prejudice of color between the whites and 
blacks, and never was. Prejudice is literally pre-judgment, 
a judgment before hand, before examination. But it is not 
pre-judgment that makes the whites and black? disinclined 
to associate with each other; and the feeling exists as 
strongly in one class as in the other. The negroes are as 
much disinclined to associate Avith the whites, as the whites 
are disinclined to associate with the negroes. But it is not 
prejudice that causes this. It is instinct. 

Instinct is defined to be the power which determines the 
will of brutes ; a desire or aversion in the mind not deter- 
mined by reason or deliberation. Though thus defined by 

(1) Jer. ix, 1-9. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 367 

lexicographers, it is really the fiat of God. The fiat of 
God places instincts upon all the animal creation, including 
man. The fear of man and the dread of man was placed 
upon all the brute creation by the fiat of God, immediately 
after the flood,^ and they have existed ever since, and still 
exist. That the young seizes the teat of the mother and 
sucks the milk, is the result of instinct, not of reason or 
judgment, though some very nice mechanical laws are 
brought into action thereby. 

The same instinct, placed by the fiat of God upon the 
races, white and black, causes them not to desire to com- 
mingle and associate. Whether the curse pronounced by 
Noah, is the fiat that placed it there, it is not necessary to 
have authoritatively decided ; but I am of opinion that it 
v>'as that that did it. That fiat debased the race that it ap- 
plied to, let it be whatever race it may, to the position of a 
slave of slaves, which necessarily made a large chasm between 
it and the free races; and the whole negro, physical and men- 
tal, shows him debased to that position. And the difference 
of color between the negroes and whites, made an equally 
large chasm; and there can be no question but that God 
placed that distinction between the races. Yet we have no 
revelation of when or how it was done, and hence we do 
not know. But the fact is there, patent to all. It must 
have been placed there by the word or fiat of God ; for by 
it the worlds were made, and without it was not anything 
made that was made. 

Hence, to call the instincts thus placed upon the races, 
prejudice, and to attempt to eradicate those instincts, and 
to override and close up the great chasms placed between 
the races by the fiat of God, is folly, not to say impiety, 
such as abolitionists only can be guilty of. 

The negroes are wholly incapable of elevation. I thought 
otherwise formerly ; but thirty or forty years of observation 
and reflection upon the subject, have conclusively satisfied 
my mind that the curse of Noah, or some other fiat of God, 
has debased them ; and that they can not be elevated until 
another fiat of God makes them capable of elevation. 
That is with Him, and not with me. I will try and do my 
duty to them as fellow human beings; but I will not try to 
eradicate the instincts placed upon their race and mine, by 

(1; Gen. ix, 2. 



368 CONCLUSION OF THE 

the fiat of God, nor will I scold and abuse any one for 
obeying those instincts. 

I will close this branch of my subject, and with it my 
book, by copying in a letter from Professor S. F. B. Morse, 
the inventor of the telegraph, who says some things proper 
to be said in this book, so much better than I can say them, 
that I take the liberty of using his labors. That it may be 
;)roperly understood, the letter from Mr. Edward IST. Crosby, 
)f Poughkeepsie, New York, to which it is an answer, is 
nserted also. I hope the reader will give the Professor's 
etter a careful reading, and ponder well what he says. 



LETTER FROM EDWARD N. CROSBY, ESQ. 

Troy, February 25th, 1863. 

Professor S. F. B. Morse — My Dear and Eesj^eeted 
Sir: — I have read with deep interest the letter in the New 
York Evening Post, of the 19th inst., addressed to you by 
Mr. D. D. Field. Its general tenor harmonizes with views 
which I have long coveted the privilege of expressing to 
you, but which have been repressed by a constitutional 
feeling of respect for eminence and seniority, and a fear of 
even seeming officiously to intrude. But, as Mr. Field sug- 
gests, your fame has become a national inheritance, and this 
alike is a motive and an apology for a jealous care on the 
part of your fellow-citizens as to aught that may impair its 
luster. It is the omissions, however, rather than tlie con- 
tents, of Mr. Field's sensible and temperate letter, that 
prompts me to speak. While appealing to you on many 
high grounds, still he fails to reach the highest from which 
the subject is to be viewed. And I trust it is not assuming 
too much for one who is not only an admiring fellow-coun- 
tryman and a near neighbor, but also a christian friend, to 
discuss this matter with you from the christian's stand- 
point. And what, may I ask, appears to you the sufficient 
reason for a christian citizen to ally himself with others, for 
the extreme and radical purpose of undermining or para- 
lyzing the power of the government at a crisis when una- 
nimity of support is so plainly essential, not only to the 
T^elfare, but to the very life of the nation ? 

There are many, alas ! who, from ignorance or passion, 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 369 

persistently confound all the immense party, which came 
into being and into power only on the grand purpose of re- 
sisting Southern aggression, with the extremest radicalism 
and infidelity of the Garrison stamp. They would thus 
justify themselves in an indiscriminate and reckless hostili- 
ty to the policy of the government. I can, of course, find 
in this fact no explanation of the deliberate action of one 
of your principles and intelligence. Some may say that 
" the war on our part is unrighteous, and therefore un- 
worthy of support." But the rebels began it. To this it 
may be said : " The provocations offered them were such as 
greatly to diminish, if not remove, their criminality in thus 
beginning it." These assertions, though easily refuted, 
might require a discussion both long and foreign somewhat 
to my purpose. But it may be said that " the war, though 
righteous, is waged by unrighteous methods, such as confis- 
cation, and more particularly, emancipation." If, however, 
it is a legitimate function of our government to destroy 
the fabric of the Southern Confederacy, a fortiori, is it not 
justified in removing that which their own highest authori- 
ties pronounce to be the corner stone of that fabric ? More- 
over, though this position is as palpably untenable as the 
two previously stated, yet supposing it to be a sincere 
christian conviction, inasmuch as these methods must be 
objected to rather as inexpedient than as morally and le- 
gally unjustifiable, should not another christian conviction, 
that of duty to the '' powers that are ordained of God," 
prevent any disposition to resistor thwart the government? 
But I would fain suppose that rather than either of the 
above, the grounds of your political views and action have 
been an earnest desire for peace, and an abomination of 
war and its attendant horrors. In both of these feelings I 
claim the fullest sympathy with you, and yet I can not pos- 
sibly construct upon them a fulcrum for unfriendly action 
against our government. 

I have seen in the progress of events much to criticise 
and regret in the administration, but I feel assured that as 
far at least as our President is concerned, the errors have 
been those of the judgment, and are compatible with a pure 
integrity, and a high-toned patriotism. Horrible too as 
war is, we are to remember that it may yet be a worthy 
means to a worthy end. God has certainly in his word 



370 CONCLUSION OF THE 

more directly and repeatedly given his sanction to it, than 
he has to slavery. But what is the legitimate, the inevita- 
ble tendency of such unfriendly demonstrations as those to 
which you w^ere persuaded to give countenance-" at Delmo- 
nico's, and which have had a fuller but natural development 
in Connecticut and elsewhere ? We are not left to theories 
for a reply. Facts show that while the rebel leaders insult- 
ingly spurn all pusillanimous overtures of conciliation, they 
also exult over them as evidences of divided counsels and 
increasing feebleness at the North. They are thereby em- 
boldened to declare themselves utterly implacable, except 
by success in their own ruinous plans. What, then, should 
be our necessary logic, our irresistible inference? Cer- 
tainly patriotism, and a wise appreciation of the worthy 
and the abundant means committed to us, would decide ;it 
once. Let us, by united and couragous effort, show the 
rebels that their success is perfectly hopeless. May I ven- 
ture to speak a word also as to the personnel in these mat- 
ters? Mr. JField says that he knows personally nearly all 
of those who were associated vnth you at Delmonico's, and 
implies very plainly that they borrowed from your presence 
a respectability for which they could make no becoming re- 
turn. It was on a previous public occasion, that I saw, 
with no slight regret, your good name published, as appear- 
ing on the same platform with the characterless , the 

infamous , and the pitiable . Can it be that the 

purest and most patriotic measures draw to their advocacy 
such persons, while they fail to attract the innumerable 
host who dissent, and wdiose patriotism and probity you 
can not but heartily commend? 

The high estimate I have formed of your christian char- 
acter, confirmed and increased by my intercourse with , 

has encouraged me to speak with the more freedom, and 
with the hope that it will be received in the same kindly 
spirit which has prompted it. 

Yours most sincerely and respectfully, 

Edward N. Crosby. 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 371 

PROFESSOR MORSE'S REPLY. 

New York, March 2, 1868. 

My Dear Sir : — Yours of the 25th of February is re- 
ceived, and I take in good part what you say, written, how- 
ever, wholly under misconception of my opinions, my posi- 
tion, and the objects for which the society for the diffusion 
of political knowledge has been organized. I know from 
your estimable character, that your intention and motives 
were of the most benevolent kind in addressing me, and in 
reply, I shall make a few remarks, I trust in the same 
kindly spirit, while on the subjects you introduce I use per- 
fect plainness of speech. 

Your letter touches on many topics, upon some of which, 
i have, for y^ars, bestowed much study; and it may be, 
that a frank discussion of them at a time when the public 
mind is alive to such discussions, may be useful in eliciting 
truth. Fundamental difference of opinion is often more 
seeming than real, perhaps from the inherent imperfections 
of language itself, in conveying our real thoughts to an- 
other's mind, or through some defect of intellect or educa- 
tion in not using perspicuous language. If due weight 
were given to a consideration of this kind, there would be 
less of that asperity of remark upon other's misconceptions, 
which, in this day of excitement, deforms the popular style. 
Mere difference of opinion, honestly entertained, is entitled 
to that forbearance which is denied to brazen-faced, persis- 
tent falsehood. 

I can account for your misconceptions of the purpose of 
our society, as well as of many other topics upon which 
you have written, only on the presumption that you ground 
your remarks on the assumed truth of the egregiously false 
and impudent representations of an unprincipled reporter 
of tlie Evening Post. If this was the source of your in- 
formation, you might as well look for truth respecting Bible 
doctrine from Voltaire or Thomas Paine. Are you not 
aware that the pretended report of the incipient meeting 
at Delmonico's, which led to the formation of our society, 
is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end, exposed 
and refuted in numerous journals? Of how many false- 
hoods, persistently repeated, must a journal be convicted, 
before its statement of facts shall be received with suspicion? 



6i'J> CONCLUSION OF THE 

I need not saj to you that the admission into the Evening 
Post of such a grossly abusive report, while entertaining, 
as I have hitherto, for its senior editor, so much personal 
respect, (however much I may differ from him politically,) 
is a source of deep mortification to me. 

MR. field's letter. 

Mr. Field's letter, addressed to me, was probably indited 
under the influence of impressions m.ade by that same in- 
famous report; and while I have no complaint of w.-snt of 
courtesy on his part toward me personally, I saw nothing 
in its general tenor of sufficient importance to require any 
answer from me. Though addressed to me, it was evident- 
ly addressed to the public through me, and I was used only 
as a convenient mode of addressing the public. So far as 
anything he said required notice, that notice was taken of 
it by several journals. I inslose you clippings from two 
which happen to be at hand. Whatever person;; 1 regard I 
have for Mr. Field, and for his highly respectable fi^-nily 
connections, the state of the country compels me to A\aive 
all considerations of social relations, in treating of its po- 
litical condition. His views and mine, on the subjjct of 
the policy of the administration, are anti podal ; and in 
view of his reported action in the Peace Congress, in con- 
nection with some of his radical associates, to w^hich action 
can be traced the present awful conditions of the country, 
since it was in their power (if I have been rightly advised) 
to have averted the war, I can not but look upon his and 
their political course as laying upon them a weight of re- 
sponsibility which I would not have upon my conscience 
for a thousand worlds. 

CHRISTIAN STAND-POINT. 

You desire *' to discuss the subject from the christian's 
stand- point." I accede to this the more readily since that 
is precisely the stand-point from which I have always en- 
deavored to view the whole field of controversy. On Bible 
truth, therefore, I am ready to plant every position I take. 

Did it not lead me into too lono^ a discussion for a letter 
like this, a discussion starting from a point too far back, even 
from fundamental theological principles, I should like to es- 
tablish with you this stand-point impregna,blj on the Bible. 
This will have to be done ere the perverted christian mind 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 373 

of the country can be disabused of the ruinous fallacies 
which have turned aside the incumbents of so many pulpits 
from their legitimate duty of allaying the fierce passions of 
men, through the tranquilizing influences of the Gospel of 
peace, and changed them into impassioned political orators, 
whose exasperating harrangues have added fuel to the al- 
ready raging fires of a ferocious and desolating fanaticism.^ 
Such a discussion, important as it is, must be in abeyance. 
I proceed to answer your question, " What appears to 
you the sufficient reason for a christian citizen to ally him- 
self with others for the extreme and radical purpose of un- 
dermining or paralyzing the power of the government at a 
crisis when unanimity of support is so plainly essential, 
not only to the welfare, but to the very life of the nation?" 

GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION. 

I will analyze the component parts of your question. 
You assume, without any warrant, that my purpose is to 
" undermine and paralyze the power of the government." 
You appear to have fallen into the prevalent error of con- 
founding the government with the administration of the 
government. You are too sensible not to see that they are 
not the same. The word government has indeed two mean- 
ings ; and in order to rescue the subject from ambiguity, 
allow me to sa}^ that the ordinary meaning of government, 
m ^ree countries, is, that form of fundamental rules and 
principles by which a nation or State is governed, or by 
which individual members of a body politic are to regulate 
their action. Government is in fact a constitution by which 
the rights and duties both of citizens and public officers are 
prescribed and defined. If the word sometimes has a sec- 

(1) ''Politics and the jnilpit are terms that have little agreement. No sound ought to be 
heard in the church but the healing voice of christian charity The cause of civil liberty 
and civil gOTcrnment gains as little as that of religion, by this confusion of duties. Those 
who quit their proper character to assume what does not belong lo them, are, for the 
greater part, ignorant both of the character they leave, and of the character they assume. 
Wholly unacquainteii with the world in which they are so fond of meddling, and inexpe- 
rienced in all its alfairs, on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they have 
nothing of politics ))ut the passions they excite. Surely the church is a place where one 
day's truce ought to be allowed to the dissensions and animosities of mankind."— Burke : 
Reflections on French Revolution, vol i, p. 460. 

"I have something also to the divines, though brief, to what were needful, not to be 
disturbers of the civil affairs; but in hands better able, and more belonging, to manage 
them; but to study harder, and to attend the office of good pastors, knowing tliat he whose 
flock is least among them, has a dreadful charge, not performed by mounting twice into 
the pulpit with a formal preachment huddled up at the odd hours of a whol(> lazy week, 
but by incessant pains and watching, in season and out of season, from house to house' 
over the souls whom they have to feed. Which, if they well considered, how little leisure 
would they find to be the most pragmatical sidesmen of every popular tumult and sedition." 
—Milton: Treatise on Tenure of Kings, <&c. 



374 CONCLUSION OF THE 

ondary or more limited meaning synonymous with adminis- 
tration of public affairs, then "the government" is meto- 
nymically used for administration, and should not be con- 
founded ^vith the original and true signification of the term 
administration, which means the persons collectively who 
are intrusted with the execution of the laws, and with the 
superintendence of public affairs. 

Opposition to the administration, then, is not opposition 
to the government ; the former may not only be utterly de- 
stroyed without affecting the health of the government, but 
it may be, and constantly is, thought to be necessary, in 
the opinion of the supreme power, the people, to destroy 
the administration in order to preserve the life of the gov- 
ernment. This is in accordance not only with the theory 
of our institutions, but with the daily practice of the peo- 
ple. Every change of administration, at every election. 
Federal, State, or municipal, great or small, exemplifies 
this great truth. The government remains intact, un- 
scathed, while the administration is swept out of existence. 

In the light of this explication, you must perceive, that 
so far from "allying myself with others for the purpose of 
undermining and paralj^zing the power of the government," 
the very purpose of our society is to uphold and strengthen 
the government, by diffusing among the people such a 
knowledge of the principles upon which it is founded, that 
it shall not be in the power of any administration, whether 
weak or wicked, to work its injury. 

I yield to no man in hearty loyalty to the government, 
nor in obedience also to the administration in all its consti- 
tutional measures, whatever may be my private opinion of 
their wisdom. You mistake me, if you suppose I have any 
" radical purpose of undermining or paralyzing " any of its 
legal measures. If I think them unwise, I shall use my 
constitutional liberty to say so ; and if the administration 
transcends the power intrusted to it by the people, I shall 
endeavor to point out their error, not in a contumacious or 
unkind spirit, but nevertheless firmly. To the standard of 
the constitution, and the Union under it, of all the United 
States, I shall cling as the only political hope of the country, 
our only defense against anarchy and despotism. 

WHAT MUST WE SUPPORT ? 

But you say "unanimity of support is essential to the 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 375 

very life of the nation." Support of what ? Laws and acts 
subversive of the government? Laws and acts in direct 
and palpable contravention of the constitution ? Laws and 
acts outside of the constitution ? Where, in the fundamen- 
tal law of the government, the constitution, does the Pres- 
ident, one of the administrators of the supreme law, find 
his authority for his emancipation proclamation ? Where 
for his usurpation of the power to suspend the habeas cor- 
pus ? Where for the confiscation acts ? Where for his au- 
thority to arrest and incarcerate citizens ? These are all 
acts of the administration, not of the government ; they are 
acts subversive of the government ; acts that are " paralyz- 
ing and undermining " the government ; acts that are divi- 
ding the people of the North, alarming them for the safety 
of the constitution, the government, and arousing them to 
call their servants, the administrators, to account. 

It is on such a confounding of terms as this, of govern- 
ment and administration, that you charge " extreme and 
radical purposes " upon those who rally in support of the 
government. 

NECESSITY FOR OUR SOCIETY. 

You must excuse me, dear sir, if I say that your letter, 
to so great an extent based upon the popular fallacies of 
the day, is itself a proof of the necessity of just such a 
society as we have formed ; because, if minds like yours, 
intelligent, reflective, ingenuous, and conscientious, are so 
much at fault on the fundamental principles of our institu- 
tions, what must be inferred of the minds of others less in- 
telligent, who imbibe their opinions, and mold their actions, 
from the prejudiced and befogged intellects controlling the 
fanatical avenues to public opinion ? 

CHARACTER OF ABOLITIONISM. 

By the manner in which you allude to the " extreme ra- 
dicalism and infidelity of the Garrison stamp," I am glad 
to find we have a common stand-point from which to view 
a portion of the field. Look at that dark conclave of con- 
spirators, freedom-shriekers, Bible spurners, fierce, impla- 
cable, head-strong, denunciatory, constitution and Union 
haters, noisy, factious, breathing forth threatenings and 
slaughter against all who venture a difference of opinion 
from them, murderous, passionate advocates of imprison- 



376 CONCLUSION OF THE 

ments and liaDgings, bloodthirsty ; and if there is any 
other epithet of atrocity found in the vocabuhiry of wick- 
edness, do they not every one fitly designate some phase 
of radical abolitionism? 

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABOLITIONISTS AND REPUBLICANS 
IMPOSSIBLE. 

But you would have us make a distinction between these 
" radicals and infidels of the Garrison stamp," and the "• im- 
mense party which," as you say, " came into being and into 
power only on the grand purpose of resisting Southern 
aggression." 

Waiving the question you raise of the existence of any 
Southern aggression, (previous to the last Presidential elec- 
tion,) making resistance necessary on the part of the North, 
I ask you how can any distinction be made between parties 
in close alliance, carrying out together and sustaining the 
same policy? Did not the Republican party, (in whose 
ranks I recognize many excellent, intelligent, conscientious 
men,) did not, I say, that party, in full consciousness of the 
diabolical character of that " radical and infidel " faction, 
form a political alliance with it for the purpose of obtaining 
the power which they now hold ? The expectation in form- 
ing the coaliation was doubtless that you would be able to 
control the numerically smaller wing of the alliance. You 
thought this possible ; I did not. So soon as it was appa- 
rent that such an alliance had been formed, 1 predicted that 
the abolition w^ing Avould control the whole ; and if the 
party thus formed were successful, the hopes of the country 
for peace and Union would be wrecked ; for it is the very 
nature of fanaticism to leaven the whole lump. Was I not 
right? I ask you now to look at the state of the country. 
Is it not true that the abolition element has acquired the 
control of that "immense party" of which you speak? 
Are you not advocating and supporting the abolition policy 
of the administration? Is it not true that these very '^radi- 
cals and infidels of the Garrison stamp," whom you justly 
loathe, have framed and passed the most offensive abolition 
measures that tinge the whole policy of the administration? 
So notorious is this fact, that to ask is to answer the ques- 
tion. These, then, are the men with whom I find you affil- 
iated. May I not appropriately quote your own question, 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 377 

and ask : " Can it be that the purest and most patriotic 
measures draw to their advocacy such persons, while they 
fail to attract the innumerable host who dissent," &c ? But 
I will not do you the injustice thus to judge you by the 
standard by which you would judge me, for your standard 
is defective. Every one of any experience in political 
movements is aware, that on both sides, in party excite- 
ments, there is every possible variety of character associa- 
ting together, not because of other or general aflSnities, but 
for the single purpose of carrying a common measure, in 
which all feel more or less interest. Their several interests 
in that common measure may be as diverse as possible; 
some from high principle, some for the triumph of an opin- 
ion, some to obtain office, some to obtain money. It is not, 
therefore, safe to characterize a cause by the character of 
some few who may be loud and forward in advocating it. 
Bad men may promote a good cause for bad ends. It is 
safest to judge of a cause on its own merits. 

EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION AND THE CORNER STONE. 

I am sorry to find you defending tbe President's emanci- 
pation proclamation. It is a measure which I have consid- 
ered from the moment of its promulgation unwise, uncon- 
stitutional and calamitous, productive of evil and only evil; 
a measure that, more than any other, has tended to divide 
the counsels of the North, and unite the South, and render 
restoration of the National Union next to hopeless. Your 
defense of it rests on a fallacy. You say " if it is a legiti- 
mate function of our government to destroy the fabric of 
the Southern Confederacy, afori{ori,is it not justified in re- 
moving that which their own highest authorities pronounce 
to be its corner-stone ?" To answer your question intelli- 
gently, it is necessary to know the nature of that corner 
stone, before we can pronounce whether the government 
would be justified in removing or attempting to remove it. 
If the stone should happen to be a providential fixture, un- 
alterable in its very nature by anything that man can do, a 
condition of a physical character, not to be affected by any 
act of man, you will agree with me, that the government 
would not be justified in making any such necessarily abor- 
tive and quixotic attempt. I presume from your question, 
you have adopted the prevalent misunderstanding of a pas- 
25 



378 CONCLUSION OF THE 

sage in Mr. Stephens' speech at Savannah, in which he 
speaks of the corner stone of the Confederate Government. 
You assume that this corner stone is shivery, and so our 
government is justified in its measures to destroy slavery. 
Although a great multitude, both in Europe and America, 
entertain this stereotyped error, and it has, within a few days, 
been twice reiterated in the late non-intervention report of 
the Senate Committee of Foreign relations, yet it is none 
the less an egregious misapprehension of Mr. Stephens' 
remark, and a false assumption that the Confederate Cov- 
ernment have adopted any such corner stone. In the first 
place, if Mr. Stephens had made such an announcement 
in his speech, (which he has not,) that would not constitute 
law for the government. We do not look for the authority 
of the fundamental law of a government in a casual speech 
of any members of its administration, not even from the 
President, but in the fundamental law itself, in its written 
oflicially accepted constitution. Now, there is not one word 
in the Constitution of the Confederacy that gives color to 
any such idea as slavery being the corner stone of the gov- 
ernment. On the contrary, sec. ix, art. 1, clearly repudiates 
it. For if slavery is the adopted corner stone of their gov- 
ernment, common sense suggests that, in their fundamental 
law, they would and should use every effort to strengthen 
and support it ; and yet they forbid in that section and arti- 
cle that very policy, which would give strength and perman- 
ency to such a corner stone. Mr. Stephens, however, has 
made no such declaration, yet he is quoted everywhere as 
the source when this wide-spread erroneous apothegm has 
proceeded. It may be well to ventilate this matter more 
thoroughly. 

THE CORNER STONE IS THE INEQUALITY OF THE TWO RACES. 

Let US learn what Mr. Stephens actually did say. His 
language is this: " The foundations of our new government 
are laid, its corner stone rests upon "—what? slavery? no — 
'' upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the 
white man ;" that slavery, which he then defines to be " sub- 
ordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral 
condition. This, our new government, is the first in the 
history of the world based upon this great physical, philo- 
sophical and moral truth." This language could not be ap- 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 379 

plied to slavery. It would be a strange misapplication of 
terms to call slavery a physical, philosophical and moral 
truth. He had just been stating to his hearers that the 
ideas prevalent at the time our Federal Constitution was 
formed "rested upon the assumption of the equality of the 
races." This proposition he declares to be unsound, and 
that the new government was founded upon exactly the 
opposite idea. The error on one side, which he combats, is 
the assumed equality of the races. The opposite truth 
which he propounds, is the physical, philosophical and 
moral truth, that the two races are not equal ; and the in- 
ference he draws from this truth is, that this physical differ- 
ence determines the status of the inferior race. I coiifess 
I can not see how to escape that conclusion, except by de- 
nying the inequality of the races ; by denying that there is 
this physical difference between them ; for, if there is this 
difference, then one race, of necessity, is superior, and the 
other inferior ; and if the two physically unequal races are 
compelled to live together in the same community, the su- 
perior race must govern the inferior. Can you avoid this 
conclusion ? 

THE CORNER STONE CAN NOT BE REMOVED. 

What prospect of success, then, is there of any attempt 
to remove such a corner stone? Who has constituted the 
two races physically different? There can be but one an- 
swer — it is God. To attempt, therefore, a removal of this 
corner stone, which infinite wisdom has laid in the fabric of 
human society, is of so presumptious a character, that few 
should be rash enough to undertake it. The physical ine- 
quality of the races, then, is this corner stone, and not 
slavery. Slavery, which is a government, must be, in some 
form, the necessary resultant of this fact; and if you can re- 
move the corner-stone, to-wit, the ph3^sical inequality of the 
races,, you may thus destroy slavery; but since the "Ethio- 
pian can not change his skin," nor can any earthly power 
do it for him, so long as the two races exist together in the 
same community — you may change the master, or the rela- 
tive position of the races, but one or the other will still be 
dominant. Slavery in America can only be abolished by 
separating the races. Is it worth while to attempt to re- 
move a corner stone which God has laid? * 



380 CONCLUSION OF THE 

The reasoning of Mr. Stephens has an apposite parallel 
in the reasoning of the elder Adams, on the theory of gov- 
ernment, as given in his " Life by his grandson," C. F. 
Adams, the accomplished representative of our government 
to the Court of St. James. 

"Unlike most speculators on the theory of governments, 
Mr. Adams begins by assuming the imperfections of man's 
nature, and introducing it at once as an element with which 
to compose his edifice. 

"He finds the human race impelled by their passions as 
often as guided by their reason, sometimes led to good 
actions by scarcely corresponding motives, and sometimes 
to bad ones rather from inability to resist temptation than 
from natural propensity to evil. This is the corner stone 
of his system," 

Let us put Mr. Adams' theory in the language of Mr. 
Stephens. " The foundations of civil government are laid, 
its corner stone rests upon the great truth that man has an 
i^nperfect nature; that the human race is impelled by their 
passions; that, therefore, subordination of the inferior to 
the superior, inherent in the very nature of government, is 
man's natural and moral condition. Civil government is 
based upon this great phj^sical, philosophical and moral 
truth." Would it be just to accuse Mr. Adams of basing 
government on slavery as the corner-stone, because he ad- 
mits the necessity of the subordination of the inferior to 
the superior? In other words, to make him utter the ab- 
surdity that " government is the corner stone of govern- 
ment." 

PRESIDENT LINCOLN AND MR. STEPHENS PROCLAIM THE SAME 
CORNER STONE. 

Perhaps you may think I have adopted Southern views 
on this point, and that the inequality and physical differ- 
erence of the two races are altogether Southern dogmas. 
I need not cross the Potomac to find the same great truth 
proclaimed in a quarter entitled to respect, and by one who 
politically outranks the Vice-President of the Confederacy, 
to-wit, the President of the United States. 

You will recollect the interview, on August 14, 1862, be- 
tween a committee of colored men and President Lincoln, 
invited by him, to hear what he had to say to them. His 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 881 

object in summoning them before him was to persuade them 
to emigrate; and lie bases his argument to them on the 
very corner stone decLared by Mr. Stephens, to-wit, the 
physical difference or inequality of the two races. Presi- 
dent Lincoln's plan was to separate the races. 

" You and we," said he to them, " are different races. 
We have between us a broader difference than exists be- 
tween almost any other two races. Whether it is right or 
wrong, I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a 
great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race is 
suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on 
any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you 
are far from being placed on an equality with the white 
race. On this broad continent not a single man of your 
race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where 
you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I 
do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact 
with which we have to deal. I can not altar it if I would. 
It is a fact about which we all feel and think alike, T and 

you." 

THEIR DIFFERENT MODES OF DEALING WITH THE CORNER 

STONE. 

Thus you perceive that both President Lincoln and Mr. 
Stephens are in perfect accord in accepting and acting upon 
the same great truth. President Lincoln accents the phys- 
ical inequality of the two races as completely as Mr. Steph- 
ens, for where there is a broader difference than exists be- 
tween almost any other two races, it would be absurd to say 
they are equal, especially when the President justly adds 
that this difference is physical, that is, grounded in the 
original constitution of each race. The only difference be- 
tween the President of the United States and ]\L'. Stephens, 
is in the use to which they put this physical, philosophical 
and moral truth, this corner stone. Mr. Stephens proposes 
it in his Savannah speech as the basis of the new govern- 
ment; Mr. Lincoln adopts it as the basis of his plan of sep- 
arating the races, because of this physical difference. Mr. 
Stephens takes the stone, as a whole, upon which he would 
construct a government ; Mr. Lincoln would split the stone, 
and drag the parts asunder. Mr. Stephens accepts the fact, 
and adjusts his fabric to it. Mr. Lincoln also accepts the 



382 CONCLUSION OF THE 

fact, and is perplexed witli inextricable difficulties in his 
attempts to dispose of the two portions of the common 
corner stone. 

THE president's PERPLEXITIES IN DEALING WITH THE 
CORNER STONE. 

It is well to notice these perplexities of the President's 
mind as they are manifested in his singular interview with 
this colored delegation. The great truth of the physical 
difference of the two races is so palpable that he can not 
controvert it, and he frankly declines to make the attempt; 
yet, while accepting the fact, he more than doubts the wis- 
dom of the fact itself, by raising the singular question of 
right and wrong upon its existence, and thus (no doubt un- 
consciously) impugns the wisdom of the Creator, for who 
but God could ordain a physical difference in the two races? 
The raising of the question, therefore, whether a physical 
fact is " right or wrong," as if there were two sides to such 
a question, directly implicates the wisdom of the Creator. 
The President, too, while declining to discuss this question 
of right and wrong, actually decides it to be wrong, by de- 
claring it to be a "disadvantage to both" races, in his 
opinion. The plain good sense of most of the remarks of 
the President in this interview, and the collisions of thought 
in his own breast, which he discloses, where truths and 
doubts come into constant conflict, point to some great ra- 
dical disturbing error, not in the President's mind alone, 
but pervading the popular mind on the subject of African 
slavery everywhere. 

THE GREAT ERROR OF THE WORLD ON SLAVERY. 

The great fallacy, so rife everywhere throughout the 
world, that slavery is the cause of our national troubles, 
rests on the almost universal persistent closing of the eyes 
to this fact of the physical difference between the two races. 
Slavery is not the cause of the sectional war, but a blind 
and mad resistance to a physical condition which God has 
ordained, and which man is in vain attempting to subvert. 



QUESTION OF SLAVERY. 

Take your stand on this great acknowledged fact, that 
the African and white races are physically different, follow 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 383 

out this truth to its logical result, and the question of sla- 
very, or subordination of the inferior to the superior race, 
is clearly solved in all its phases. 

Do you ask how ? 

First : We must accept as a fixed fact that ordinance of 
God which he has decreed, that the two races are physically 
different, and not complicate the fact, with any modifica- 
tions, drawn from the prevalent visionary, infidel notions of 
an equality which has no existence, nor make any vain at- 
tempt to fix upon the mere relation of superio"r and inferior, 
or of rulers and ruled, moral or religious qualities which 
God in his word has not fixed to the relation. 

Second : We must leave to each and every State in the 
Union, where the two races exist together, whether in larger 
or smaller proportions, unmolested control over any adjust- 
ment of their relations to each other. 

Third : In the kindly spirit of the fathers of 1787, which 
they brought to the construction of our priceless constitu- 
tion, we should refrain from embittering the relations of the 
two races by an irritating busy-bodyism, a meddlesome in- 
terference with the manner in which the duties belonorino' 
to their relation to each other are or are not fulfilled, and 
taking the apostle's counsel " to be quiet and mind our own 
business." 

These three directions carried out in a christian spirit 
faithfully, would restore the Union on the only basis on 
which it can ever be restored. Whether enlightened rea- 
son can make its voice heard in this din of warring passions 
and interests, so that its "peace be still" can calm the 
storm that is desolating us, is a question I will not pretend 
to answer. It is to the true, sober, christian sentiment of 
the country, when disenthralled from its entanglement with 
the delusive socialistic and infidel theories of the day, that 
we look with any hope for our national salvation. 

I have dwelt at some length on this one point, because of 
its paramount importance. It is a noticeable and gratify- 
ing circumstance, that our President and the Vice-Presi- 
dent of the Southern Government, are in accord on a fund- 
amental principle. Union of opinion on one point, espe- 
cially if that point be fundamental, is hopeful, and prophetic 
of further conciliation, perhaps pacification, in the future. 
The great physical fact of the broad difference of the Afri- 



384 CONCLUSION OF THE 

can and white races, which the President so justly and 
openlj recognizes, lies at the root of the whole controversy 
respecting slavery. Let us, then, study the condition of 
things resulting from this truth in the light of an intelli- 
gent christian philosophy, not viewing it through the dis- 
torted medium of abolition spectacles, but with the clear 
vision of an eye spiritually enlightened, and a temper of 
heart which accepts a providential fact with humility, rec- 
ognizing the highest wisdom in all God's ordinances, how- 
ever mysterious to us, endeavoring to adapt our ways to 
his facts, not his facts to our ways. In that temper of 
heart, you will clearly discern that this providential arrange- 
ment of conditions in human society, has for its end a pur- 
pose of infinite and eternal good to both races — a purpose 
clearly discerned in the light of Gospel truth, but wholly 
obscured in the smoke with which a proud but shallow infi- 
del philosophy, a false Christianity, and pretentious human- 
itarianism, have enshrouded the whole subject. 

PROBABLE ENGLISH INTRIGUE TO PREVENT RE- UNION. 

One word on your remark, that the South " spurns all 
overtures of conciliation." When, where, and by whom 
have any overtures been made? When, where, and by 
whom have they been spurned ? If you take the intemper- 
ate speeches, the passionate flings in editorial and anony- 
mous articles, in the Southern journals, as the exponents of 
the real sentiments of the Southern masses, are these the 
safe bases upon which to found 'your remarks ? If so, by 
parity of reasoning, the Southern masses should take the 
" radical and infidel " ravings of the " Garrison stamp," 
which are their counterpart in the speeches, editorials and 
anonymous articles of our newspapers. We have been ac- 
customed to condemn the South for its false judgment of 
ISTorthern sentiment, because formed from just such radical 
sources. These are very unsafe sources of information on 
each side in exciting times like these, on which to found in- 
tersectional sentiment. Let me hint at one danger from 
relying on such undiplomatic sources of information. Glance 
for a moment at the attitude of England toward the United 
States. We there see two well-defined parties, neither of 
them friendly to us as a nation; one the cotton interest 
siding with the Southj and the other her abolition coteries 



DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. 885 

• 

siding with the North; and so, England, balancing herself 
adroitly between these two parties in her own island, safe 
from any dangerous collision between them, harmful to her- 
self, through her administration can give aid in our deplora- 
ble strife to the one section or to the other, or to both, to 
prevent conciliation, as best may serve the great political 
purpose of England — the permanent division of the United 
States. Keeping within the bounds of a quasi-neutrality, 
England can, on the one hand, furnish the South with muni- 
tions of war, and privateers to prey on Northern commerce; 
and, on the other, can get up abolition demonstrations at Exe- 
ter Hall and elsewhere, to strengthen and encourage the fa-* 
natical element of the North, as the vicissitudes of our unnat- 
ural war manifest, in one or the other section, any abatement 
of that ferocity of hate which she has for so long a period 
engendered and seduously promoted as the sure means of ac- 
complishing her political purpose of permanent separation} 

(1) Let me ask your atteutive reflection upon such indications of English designs and 
desires as the following: In an able article on the American Kevolution, in the Eding- 
hurgh Eetieio, of October, 1862, the reviewer says: "We therefore say, without'hesita- 
tion, that we wish the war to cease, and the independence of the South to be established." 

Lord Campbell, in the House of Lords, on the 4th of August, 1862, said: "It is not too 
much to say that no class or party in the country any longer desires to see the reconquest 
of the South, and the reconstruction of the Union." The reviewer says: "At the outset 
of the struggle, the tendency was strong in England to side with the North. On thp other 
hand, many felt undoubfed satisfaction at the breaking up of that great democratic govern- 
ment, whose institutions had been held up to them by their own reformers as a model of 
perfection," kc. The reviewer puts the question : " Is it the interest of the civilized world, 
and especially of our own country, (England,) that the American Union should be restored?" 
And he answers it by saying: " It can scarcely be said that the relations of the American 
Union to Europe, and to England in particular, have been so satisfactory as to make us 
anxious for its continuance." 

Further on he says: "The feeling in England is not founded on a desire of vengeance 
or personal retribution on any one, for insults which we have received. It rests on a much 
more calm and rational basis — that is to say, on the conviction that the unity of the gov- 
ernment at Washington alone made the blow tell ; it is hoped that when that unity is gone, 
all insults of the kind, if not so impolitic to be avoided altogether, will at least be harm- 
less, and of no consequence to England." In another place: "The independence of the 
South would open new markets for our manufactures, without the previous restrictions of 
Federal tariffs." 

These extracts, from the most intelligent exponents of public opinion in England, could 
be multiplied to any extent. I give one or two only from the Iforth British Reviexc, of 
February, 1862: " Most Englishmen, and ourselves among the number, have arrived at the 
conclusion, not only that the secessionists will succeed in their enterprise, but that this 
success will, eventually, be of the most signal service to humanity, to civilization, and to 
the cause of universal and enduring peace." 

Again: "We entertain, then, no doubt that the dissolution of the Union is an accom- 
plished and irreversible fact, and one of the very greatest facts of our day. We can see 
no grounds on which the continuance of that Union should be desired by any wise or good 
man." 

Again: "That the independence of the South and the dissolution of the great republic 
are accomplished and irreversible facts, seems to us undeniable. The nation founded by 
Washington is severed — the Union contrived by his wisdom, and consecrated by his name, 
is at an end. We have now to ask what beauty there was in it that we should have longed 
for its continuance ? What sacred purpose did it serve that we should deplore its end ?" 

These are specimens only indicating the bias of English sentiment, and showing that the 
English Government looks with exultation on the success of its plot of dividing our Union. 
Is this, then, the time for persistence in unconstitutional acts, which must inevitably create 
further rendings and divisions ? 



^86 CONCLUSION OF THE DISCUSSION. 

It is not an unreasonable supposition, that English emissaries 
at the South, supported from the "secret service fund," are 
the authors of those assumed spurnings of conciliatory 
overtures which you look upon as coming from the Southern 
heart? While this supposition, natural in the light of her 
past history, is not only possible, hut probable, I need better 
evidence than has yet appeared, that the Southern masses, 
the great conservative body of the Southern people, are 
really disunionists. There is evidence on the contrary, 
that Union sentiment exists in the South, and would show 
its existence and activity, were it not stifled by the uncon- 
stitutional means which Northern, in alliance with English 
abolitionism, have brought to bear, to kill it. 

I stop rather abruptly, possibly to my disadvantage, for I 
am compelled to leave untouched points perhaps necessary to 
prevent misapprehension. There is, however, a sentence in 
your letter, which I can not pass unnoticed, grounded, it 
appears, upon a remark of Mr. Field, casting an imputation 
upon the respectability and purity of intention of those as- 
sociated with me in the effort to diffuse political knowledge. 
What Mr. Field may have said under the influence of that 
mendacious report of the Post, or what he may think of 
their characters, becomes of consequence only through 
your reiteration of his opinion. I notice it, therefore, 
(since you are in actual ignorance as well of the persons 
who were present, as of their social and moral position,) to 
say that neither could their respectability be enhanced, nor 
my own diminished, by my association with them. I can 
not close without thanking you for your frank letter and 
expressions of neighborly and friendly interest, which I 
cordially reciprocate. 

Truly, with respect and high personal esteem, your friend 
and neighbor, 

Samuel F. B. Morse. 

Edward N. Crosby, Esq. 



THE END. 



APPENDIX 



NUMBER I. 



Pleas before the Hon. Jehu T. Elliott, Judge of the 13th Judicial Cir- 
cuit, iu the State of Indiana, on Thursday, the IGth day of October, A. 
D. 1862, held at the court house, in and for the county of Jay, in the 
State of Indiana. 

Jay County, "( Heretofore, to-wit, on the 8th day of September, A. D. 
to-wit. j 1862, Jercmah Smith filed in tfee clerk's office, of our 

said Jay Circuit Court, in the State of Indiana, his complaint in the 
words and figures following, to-wit: 

State of Indiana, Jay county. In the Jay Circuit Court, October 
Term, A. D. 1802. Jeremiah Smith, the plaintiff in this suit, complains 
of John F. Bowden, the defendant in this suit, and says: Paragraph 1st, 
That heretofore, to-wit, on the 12th day of March, A. D. 1859, the plain- 
tiff contracted with, and sold to the defendant, the west half of the 
southeast quarter of section number nineteen, in township number 
twenty-four, of range fourteen, east, containing eighty acres, and lying 
in the count}' of Jay aforesaid, at and for the price and sum of sixteen 
hundred dollars, out of which the defendant agreed to, and then and 
there was to pay $166 50, for Avhich the said land was then mortgaged 
to the school fund of said county, and for the remainder of which pur- 
chase-money he gave the plaintiff his four several promissory notes of 
that date: one for $233 50, and due December 1st, 1859, and the other 
three for $400 each, and due on the 1st day of August, 1860, 1861, and 
1862, respectively, all of said notes bearing interest from date, and col- 
lectable without any relief whatever from valuation or appraisement 
laws ; and the defendant also agreed, and was to pay the taxes of the 
current and subsequent years of said lands, and was put in possession 
of the said lands and premises by the plaintiff, and has remained in pos- 
session thereof from thence hitherto, and at the time of making said 
contract, the plaintiff executed and delivered to the said defendant a 
title-bond reciting said contract and sale, and binding and obligating 
the plaintiff to convey the said lands to the defendant, his heirs or as- 
signs within a reasonable time after the said purchase-money should be 
fully paid; and the said plaintiff says, that on the 15th day of October, 
1861, by the judgment and consideration of this honorable court, he re- 
covered against the said defendant the sum of $1086 92 for the balance 
of the principal and interest then due and unpaid of the three notes 
first falling due of the said notes so given for said land, and also his 
costs in that behalf expended, taxed $ ; on which judgment, he af- 
terwards sued out execution, and which execution was returned by the 
sheriff "no property found whereon to levy," all of which fully and at 
large appears by the records of this court herein remaining; and the 
plaintiff further says that the last of said notes with its interest, is now 
due, and is unpaid, and every part thereof, and he files a copy thereof 



388 APPENDIX. 

herewith, and makes it a part of this complaint: Wherefore, the plain- 
tiif prays judgment for five hundi^ed dollars, the amount of said note 
and interest, tog-ether with the costs of this suit, all collectable without 
any relief whatever from valuation or appraisement laws; and the 
plaintiff also prays that this court will, by its order and decree, direct 
the said defendant to specifically perform his said contract, and pay into 
this court, for the use of the plaintiff, the amount of the said first named 
judgment, with all the interest and costs that have accrued thereon, and 
also the judgment now prayed for on the said last named note, with all 
the interest and costs accrued thereon, within a sliort day, to be fixed hy 
this court; and in default of his so paying the same, that this court, by 
its order and decree, direct the sheriff of Jay coutity to sell the said lands 
and premises, to-wit, the west half of the southeast quarter of section 
nineteen, in township twenty-four, of range fourteen, east, lying in Jay 
county, Indiana, or so much tliereof as may be necessary, as lands are 
sold on execution, without valuation or appraisement, to make the said 
judgments, with the interest and costs, and accruing costs, and u)>on the 
sale and payment of the purchase-money by the purchaser, the sheriff to 
execute to liim a deed for the premises sold, and to put the purchaser 
into immediate possession thereof; and in case the said premises shall 
not sell for sufficient to fully satisfy all of said sums of money, that the 
sheriff be directed to levy the residue of any other property of the de- 
fendant subject to execution, without relief from valuation or appraise- 
ment laws, and grant to the plaintiff other necessary and propjr reliiif 
in the premises. Jer. Smith, plaintiff. [Copy of the note omitted.] 
And on the day and j'ear first aforesaid, now come the said i).u-tie3, and 
the said defendant files his demurrer to tlie said complaint, in the v'ol- 
lowing words and figures, to-wit: The defendant, Jolm F. Bowde;i, de- 
murs to the plaintiff's complaint, and for cause sets down the foUcving : 
1. Said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a caiise of 
action. 2, That said complaint contains several causes of action im- 
properly united therein. John F. Bowden, defendant. And the said de- 
murrer IS submitted to the court, and the court having heard the argu 
ment of counsel, and mature deliberation being thereon had, overrule 
said demurrer, and said defendant having wholly failed to file and [any j 
further and other answer in discliarge of the rule heretofore taken 
against him, the court therefore render the following judgment: It is 
therefore considered by the court, that the said plaintiff recover from 
the said defendant the sum of four hundred and eighty-six dollars and 
— cents, (§486 00) the full amount of the said last mentioned proinissory 
note set out in said cause of action, and interest thereon, and also the 

sum of dollars, the costs paid, laid out, and expended by the said 

plaintiff in the prosecution of said action, collectable without any relief 
from valuation or appraisement laws. And it is further decreed by the 
court, that the said plaintiff execute and acknowledge a good and suffi- 
cient deed in fee-simple for the real estate described in said complaint, 
as required by said title-bond, with tlie proper covenants of warranty, 
excepting out of the operations of such warranty the incumbrance of a 
certain mortgage to the sinking fund, existing on said land at the time 
of the sale of said land to the defendant, and also the taxes on said 
land at the time of said sale, and subsequently accruing; and that said 
deed, wlien so executed and acknowledged, be placed in the hands of the 
clerk of this court, to be by him handed to the said defendant whenever 
he shall fully pay the balance of the said purchase-money due on said 
land described in the cause of action; and it is further decreed that said 



APPENDIX. 389 

defendant, on or before the 4th day of July, 1803, pay into the clerk's 
office of this court, for tlie use of said plaintiff, the full and entire resi- 
due of the purchase nionej'^ due on said lands, including the said amount 
of sixteen hftndred and thirty-eight dollars and 13 cents, the amount of 
the judgment set forth on the last mentioned pr^omissory note mentioned 
in said complaint, as also the amount remaining unpaid of the judgment 
heretofore rendered by this court on the three first promissory notes 
given to secure a portion of the purchase-money for said real estate, 
rendered October ir)tli, 1801, for ten hundred and eighty-six dollars and 
ninety-two cents — interest to October 15th, 18G2 — and on the full pay- 
ment of said ^purchase-money as above said by said defendant, the said 
defendant shall be entitled to the deed of conveyance for said lands di- 
rected as aforesaid to be deposited with said clerk of this court. And 
on the failure of the said defendant to pay the full amount of the pur- 
chase-money remaining unpaid as aforesaid, by the 4th day of July, 
1863, then, in that case, it shall be the duty of the sheriff of said county 
to sell said lands on a certified copy of this decree, if the same can be 
sold for an amount sufficient to pay the full residue of the purchase- 
money, and the costs of this suit; and if the same can not be sold for 
said amount, then said real estate shall be struck off and transferred to 
the said plaintiff in full discharge of his said judgments, interest' and 
costs, and the same shall be accepted and received by him in full satis- 
faction for the full amount of said purchase-money remaining due and 
unpaid, and said defendant shall be acquitted and discharged from the 
payment of the same 

I have inserted this complete record of my case against Bowden, pend- 
ing when the outrage, noticed at pages 183 and 184 of the book, was 
perpetrated on me, tliat all may come to the light. Any lawyer will at 
once see how grossly my rights were outraged by tiie decree of the 
court. For the benefit of others, I note the following things: 

1. The demurrer admitted my complaint to be true, and the court de- 
creed upon the state of facts set out in my complaint. It was the duty 
of the court to enforce the contract, not to vary the contract, or make a 
new one; yet it required that I should execute and deliver a deed into 
court before the money was paid, when by the contract it was to have 
been made after the money was paid. 

2. All the money Avas due and overdue; and yet tlie court extended 
the time of payment nearly nine months. The laAv allowed a stay of six 
months upon good security being put in, but prohibited, the court from 
giving time for the payment of the money; 2 II. S- 123, \ 378; and yet 
the court gave nine months without any security whatever. 

3. If not paid, the costs of a sale had to be incurred as decreed by the 
court, for I'owden's l)enefit; for if it sold for more than the debt and 
costs, he would get the overplus, and if it would not l)ring the debt and 
costs, I was decreed to take it in full discharge of the debt and costs. 
By the contract it was to be sold without valuation; the law said the 
court sliould so adjudge* and decree; it so adjudged, and then decreed 
that I must take it, not at two-thirds of its value, nor at its full value, 
but in full discharge of my claim, with the costs of a sheriff's sale added 
on, for Bowden's benefit. 

T!)is was public justice in October, 1802. It is worse now, and is get- 
ting worse every day. Alas! what is our country coming to! Tlie land 
was offered, an(l no bid for it. I sold it afterwards, at a loss of over 
$000. I give this to the public in sorrow for the condition it. shows our 
country to be in, and not in sorrow for the Iohs of the money. 



390 APPENDIX. 



NUMBEPv II. 

We had a moot Legislature in Winchester, in the winter of 1860-Gl. 
It honored me with the office of Governor, and I delivered the annual 
message on the 4th of January, 1861. The following is the portion of 
the message relating to our national troubles, which shows what ray 
views and opinions were then, and I have seen no reason to change 
them. My fears then expressed, are being realized, alas, too truly! In- 
ternecine strife will now soon be upon us, unless we stop in our mad 
career. 

[From the Daily Indiana State Sentinel, January 7, 18G1,.] 

But while we have been in the reception and enjoyment of these man- 
ifold blessings from the Giver of all good, and while we have inherited 
from our revolutionary ancestors the freest and best government and 
political institutions ever given to man, and are in the full enjoyment 
and fruition of its incalculable blessings and advantages, the fell spirit 
of discord and disunion has been constantly, steadily and rapidly shed- 
ding its baneful influencs among us, severing the ties of fraternity, har- 
mony and good feeling, and sowing the seeds of hatred and ill-will 
broadcast over our heaven-favoi-ed land, till we are now in the midst of 
a dissolution of our National Union, and in imminent danger of being 
precipitated into all the horrors of civil, servile and internecine wars. 
One of the original thirteen States of this Union, in her sovereign ca- 
pacity, in solemn convention of lier people, has, so far as she can by her 
individual act, severed herself from the Union, and dissolved the polit- 
ical connection hitherto existing* between her and the United States of 
America. Other States are making rapid preparations to take the same 
action, and there is great probability, if not absolute ccitainty, that in 
a short time, fifteen of the thirty-three States of this Union Avill have 
withdrawn from it, and declared themselves out of it. 

The dire effects of this state of the political atmosphere is beginning 
to be felt already. Panic and alarm have seized upon the public mind 
from one end of the country to the other. Property of all kinds has de- 
preciated in value millions and millions of dollars. Our own beloved 
State lost $2,000,000 in four weeks by depreciation in the price of pork 
and wheat, two of her great staples. Commerce has become almost en- 
tirely prostrated, sinking with it the millions invested in ships, steam- 
boats and railroads, and throwing out of employment thousands of em- 
ployees, engaged in those industrial pursuits, and thereby depriving 
them and their families of the means of sustenance. Manufacturers 
.re suffering a like prostration. Banks and the monetary affairs of the 
country have also felt the shock. It would swell this communication to 
too great a length to give specifications as to all, hence I will give one 
as to the railroad interests of the country, as a specimen of all, I take 
it from the Avierican Railroad Journal^ the organ of that interest for the 
United States: 

"Commerce flourishes only in times of quiet. As far as our railroads 
are concerned, consequently, the effect of the present political agitation 
is simply disastrous, and to a degree that can hardly be estimated. The 
construction of these works in the newer States has already been thrown 
back five years. Is there any compensatory advantage gained on the 
other side? Nothing. Everything that tends to alienate the two sec- 
tions, tends to the same extent to destroy the traffic of our public works 
Is it not then the duty of all parties interested in their construction, or 



APPENDIX. 391 

in their securities, to lend a hand to place the material interests of the 
country in harmonious relations? These transcend all of a political 
character. So long as they are maintained or preserved, the other can 
not possibly go wrong. Political obligations should be deduced from, 
and always subordinate to, considerations of personal or material ad- 
vantage. The moment these are disregarded, a course is entered upon 
which, sooner or later, must be abandoned, though not, perhaps, until 
mischief is done that can hardly be repaired." 

These disasters, dire as they are, are but the results of the incipient 
steps to, and the apprehensions of, the breaking up of our National Gov- 
ernment, and the dissolution of this Union; and they are but as a drop 
to the ocean of overwhelming calamities that will surely attend the full 
consummation of those dire events, should God in his wrath allow them 
to come upon us. May lie, in his infinite mercy, prevent their consum- 
mation! 

A peaceful dissolution of this Government is an impossibility. Were 
it possible, and the slave and free States separated peaceably, and or- 
ganized into separate republics, how long would they remain at peace? 
The discordant elements that have been operating for years to array 
these sections of the Union one against the other, and that have had 
them in quasi civil war for some years past, with the Constitution and 
the General Government in existence, would, when those restraints are 
taken fiwa}', at once plunge us into war. The pent ttp ill feeling and 
hatred that they have been so long creating and building up between 
these two sections of our Union, would spontaneously burst forth into 
the most bitter and relentless war, the results of which it is horrible to 
think of or contemplate. 

But if the Union can not be peaceably dissolved, and inasmuch as if 
could it would at once result in disastrous and ruinous warfare between 
the dissevered sections, let us contemplate a forcible dissolution of this, 
the best government ever given to man. 

A forcil>le dissolution is a dissolution in and by civil war. Civil wars 
are the most vindictive, cruel and ferocious of all wars. The institution 
of slavery being the pretext if not the cause of the troubles, efforts 
would soon successfully be made to make it not only a civil but a servile 
war. There being differences of opinions and viev/s all over the Union, 
as to the questions out of which these wars were brought about and 
prosecuted, these differences will soon bring about internecine strife. 
Thirty millions of the most enterprising, enlightened and powerful peo- 
ple on the globe will then be engaged in civil, servile and internecine 
wars, a combination of the three most horrid forms of war known to the 
human family. Once so engaged, the blood will become hot, and all the 
fiendish passions of which the human heart is capable will be called into 
action, and they will not cease to fight till perfect exhaustion compels 
them to. Strong and powerful as this people are, it will take ten or fif- 
teen years to so exhaust them. In the meantime military men — Cap- 
tains, Colonels and Generals— will have been manufactured, and when 
the country becomes depopulated and the besom of destruction of ten 
or fifteen years of devastating wars shall have overrun it, these military 
men will parcel out our territory, and the remnants of our people, into 
petty military despotisms. We once had a Washington to return our 
country, exhausted and prostrate from seven years of devastating war, 
to civil life and to the building up of free institutions; but we will 
never have another one. For more than five thousand years from its 
creation, the human family produced but one Washington. We need not 



392 APPENDIX. 

expect another one soon, if ever. Hence, civil war and a forcible disso- 
lution of this Government will be the death knell of free institutions all 
over the present territory of the United States; blight the cause of free 
institutions thi'oughout the world; and prove what despots have always 
insisted was true, that man is incapable of self-government. For if we, en- 
lightened, wise and wealthy as we are, can not preserve the civil and 
religious liberty inherited by us from our revolutionary fathers, and the 
glorious form of government they framed to secure the enjoyment of 
that liberty, and govern ourselves thereunder, can we expect to ever find 
another people that can govern themselves? It is futile to think we can. 
If we, surrounded with the blessings and immunities that we have, can 
not preserve our institutions and govern ourselves under them, the world 
need not look for another people that can. 

Washington himself said that the preservation of our Union was es- 
sential to the preservation of our liberties. In his Farewell Address, he 
said: "The unity of the Government, which constitutes you one people, 
is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is the main pillar in the 
edifice of your independence, the support of your tranquility at home, 
your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very lib- 
erty which you so highly prize." 

it becomes our duty then, and the duty of every lover of his country, 
of every lover of the cause of liberty and free institutions among man- 
kind, to look the danger that is now at our door, fully in the face. As a 
dissolution of this Government will result in the loss of our liberty and 
the destruction of the hopes of free institutions throughout the world of 
mankind, and as that dissolution is now imminent, it behooves us all to 
cast about and see if any plan can be devised to avert the threatened 
danger. 

Can the union of these States bepreserved by force? 

AVhen comparatively small portions of our fellow-citizens disobey the 
laws, or resist the due and proper execution of the trusts and duties 
confldetl to the Government, the strong arm of the-Government can prop- 
erly crush out such resistance, and restore order and obedience to the 
laws of the country. But when whole States, or a large combination of 
States, resort to the revolutionary right inherent in all mankind, and 
place themselves in resistance to the constituted authorities of the Gov- 
ernment, the question assumes a different aspect, and requires a diCferen't 
mode of treatment. 

Ours is a union of free States, constituted of free men, who have the 
right to govern themselves. The real ligament of our union is frater- 
nity of feeling and a common desire to promote the welfare of each and 
all; while each State, in the original compact, reserved to itself the right 
to judge and determine for itself what municipal and social regulations 
and institutions would best subserve its interests. Can we preserve this 
fraternity of feeling by force and compulsion? Can we prove our com- 
mon desire to promote ihe welfare of any State or States by garrisoning 
our armies among them and filling their ports with our navies? Do Ave 
honor and respect their reserved right to establish and enjoy their own 
municipal regulations and institutions when we go to war with them 
about one of them, and that a vital one that effects their whole social or- 
ganization and material wealth? All of these questions must be answer- 
ed in the negative. It is a contradiction in terms to say that a free peo- 
ple can be held in durance, and governed by compulsion, and still be a 
free people. 

Coercion, then, being incompetent to preserve union and harmony 



APPENDIX. f>C)^ 

anionjr free and independent States, composed of free people nnd •>. thP 
umon of these States is absolutely essential to the p esc^- at on of our 
own liberties as well as of the hopes of mankind for ultimate free o-ov 
::r"'r '-""^'"'^ the world, we must find some o.hr moan to prl' 
serve what is so essential to ourselves, as well as to "the rest of manki.^d"' 
, JVith great respect for the opinions of others, and diffidence ^n own 
dinl'^' '"?7 '-espectfully to sny that, a return Ttha tfr"?orna 
feeling that existed among the fathers who formed our Government and 
an exercise of the same spirit of conciliation and forbearance r.t;ctu 

Ino r' T" "^^'"i" 'r?' ''' ^" ""'«"' ^'' ^'^^ ^' ^^11 -3 in name and 
dispel the gloomy clouds that now lower over us. Whatever aiv of us 
may have done, or may now be doing, to alienate us one f,om oLn 

f^LitVfrT^-J^'^'r'^" ^^^^^'^'--p^"'--^ 

faulty conduct, if we have any, and not set ourselves ux> as the no.L?! 
01^ conscience-keepers of our fellow-citizens of ai^.'of ^sister S ate" 
for any faults, real or supposed, that we may conceive they have Each 
our ''J^'T .^^^^ '^^'^^ «"lv for its municipal regulatio^i Ynd we for 
oil . Neither is accountable for those of any of the others. Wh ir.ome 
of our citizens incorrectly think differently, and conceive that J ovT 
^ral, responsible for the political institutions of o'r^ttr' heT 
sl.ould remember that, even in the moral code, each is to give an^ccoS 
for himself and not for another- and that wo ^ni n , ^ ^ ^" account 
.0 attend ,o tl.e „,...king „ptf ouV "i^^ ttZ ^i , , ^"ZZX ,',° '" 
oo„r fellow citizens of o,I,er States of this U^i o^'" Ba „t j^.'^^t^^^ 

cal duties and obligations faithfully, ^hk we may e^ 
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty " ^ ^ ^ ^"^'^ ^^^ 

lamhnppy (obe able to say that our own beloved Indian, has in 
in her egis ative, executive and judicial departments, faithfully dis 
charged ad her constitutional duties and obligations to her sister Sites' 
but truth and justice require that I should confess in thf.nffi i ' 

. ,.is,i„ction between liberty of speeclfnnd'lCL' iouI„' 3' rpe^Sfr 

f;:?e':f^iqo'inrof-ir;t:.r^^ 

fere With, mo est or disturb the persons, families o;ropeity of a^^^^^^ 
by tf.e lintish down with speech, the'press, and the sword So they 



394 APPENDIX. 

ditJ. But that course auJ conduct of theirs was revolutionary, and re- 
sulted in the overturning of the government and existing order of things. 
The argument is an argument for revolutionizing and upturning oui* 
government — the very thing that now so fearfully threatens us. It is 
not an argument or an example to sliow us how we should act to main- 
tain our governtnent and the existing order of things, but is an argu- 
ment and example for dissolution of our government and revolution — the 
very thing we profess to be anxious to avoid. Those who quote the Dec- 
laration of Independence, and examples and precedents from the Revo- 
lution, are (though, in charity, I think, unwittingly,) arguing for the- 
dissolution and revolution of this government, as the revolutionarj^ fath- 
ers were arguing for the dissolution and revolution of the then existing 
government. Washington and the fathers were then dissolutionists and 
revolutionists. By quoting them and tlieir action during that struggle, 
we thereby avow ourselves dissolutionists and revolutionists. By taking 
theiv conduct in that stiuggle for exemplars for us, we place ourselves 
in the category of revolutionists. The right of revolution, and of re- 
currence to the natural rights of man, exists when a proper case arises 
for the exercise of that right. But the maxims and principles proper 
to recur to in the exercise of that right, are not the proper maxims and 
principles to recur to in sustaining and maintaining an existing order of 
government. The constitution and principles of the government are the 
proper things to recur to for that end. As well might the law and prec- 
edents in burglary cases be cited in an action of covenant (for the con- 
stitution is a covenant) as revolutionary principles and precedents be 
cited to determine rights and duties under the existing Government of 
the United States. 

Let us then recur to the constitution, and not to revolutionary princi- 
ples or precedents, to determine what we shall do to preserve tiiis Union. 
Let us see what is in the bond, and then faithfully and honestly perform 
all the obligations it imposes upon us. Let us conciliate our brethren 
who think that the case is made that entitles them to exercise the right 
of revolution, in the true spirit of fratei-nity and atfection. Let us ap- 
proach them in the same spirit of compromise and concession that the 
constitution itself was made in. Hear what the Father of his country 
said of it: '-The constitution which we now present, is the result of a 
spirit of amity and mutual deference and concession, which the pecu- 
liarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." Whatever the 
peculiarity of our political situation at this time, renders indispensible 
10 restore harmony and unity among us, let us, in the spirit of amity, 
at once concede it. Let us implicitly follow the advice of the Father of 
his country in his Farewell Address, and hereafter "indignantly frown 
upon every attempt to alienate any poi'tiou of our country from the rest, 
or to enfeeble the sacred ties which link together the various parts." 
Let us not "characterize parties by geographical discriminations, North- 
ern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may en- 
deavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests 
and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire inlluence, *vithin 
particular districts, is to misrepresent tlie opinions and aims of other 
districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies 
and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentitious ; they 
tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound by fra- 
ternal affection." Thus said Washington in his last political will and 
testament to tliis nation. Thougli we may not have followed his advice 
Jieretofore, let us resolutely do it hereafter, for all time to come. The 



APPENDIX. 395 

fjiilure to obey these injunctions l)as brought us to where we are, as Wash- 
ington said it would; a return to the obedieace of them may bring us 
out of our present difficulties. 

***** ^; 

The importance of preserving this Union, and the imminency of the 
danger which threatens it, makes it the first and principal duty of all 
of us to save it if possible. Should you, in your wisdom, be able to ac- 
complish so glorious a work, it will be enough for one session of the Leg- 
islature; and the country will cheerfully wait for two years for any 
minor correction of existing laws that may be needed, if you can secure 
for them the continuance of our glorious Union. And my whole heart 
is so thoroughly enlisted in this work, that I extend my hand to all of 
you iji the spirit of political and patriotic fraternity, as members of one 
and the same great and glorious Union, one and inseparable now and 
forever. 

.Jer. Smith. 

Janunri) 4, 18(31. 



NUMBER III. 



The abolitionists have been resisting for years the comsUlulion^ which 
really constitutes and creates the government. And yet they are now 
claiming to be the exclusive Union men, the exclusive loyal men ; yes, 
the "intensely loyal." They have for years rested the " powers that be,'' 
to wit, the constitutional covenant to return fugitive slaves; and now 
they are croaking in every church, on every Lord's day, about the 13th 
chapter of Romans, and the duty of christians to support the government 
meaning that they must be in subjection to abolitionism; for that Avilli 
{\xQm \s tlie government. 

The American Anti-Slavery Society long ago passed these resolutions, 
and have ever since been acting upon tiiem : 

^'' Eesolved, That secession from the United Slates Government is the duty 
of every abolitionist, since no one can take office, or deposit his vote 
under its constitution, without violating his anti-slavery principles, and 
rendering himself an abetter to the slaveholder in his sin. 

'■'■Resolved^ That years of warfare against the slave power have con- 
vinced us that every act done in support of the American Union rivets 
the chain of the slave — that the only exodus of the slave to freedom- 
unless it be one of blood, must be over the remains of the present American 
Church, and the grave of the 2^resent Union. 

^^ Resolved, That the abolitionists of this country should make it one of 
{he primary objects of this agitation to dissolve the American Union.'^ 

In 18o0, William L. Garrison truly said: 

"The Republican party is moulding public sentiment in the riglit 
direction for the specific work the abolitionists aie striving to accom- 
plish, viz: The dissolution of (he Union, and (he abolidon of slavery 
throughout the land.'' 



396 APPENDIX, 

lu 18-50, the New York Tribune said: 

"the AMERICAN FLAG. 

" Tenr down the flaunting lie ! 

Half mast the starry flag! 
Insult no i=unny sky 

With hate's polluted rag ! 
Destroy it, ye who can ! 

Deep sink it in the waves ! 
It bears a fellow man 

To groan with fellow slaves." 

Are not these and their followers pretty Union men? and have not 
the.v a full right to brani those who have always been for the Union, 
and '-friends to the constitution," as "disloyal ?" 

They pretend to be great friends of "freedom." Yet they passed in 
the last Congress an illegal aind unconstitutional act, and in August, 
I8G0, provost marshals, illegally and unconstitutionally exercising au- 
thority under the President, published circulars, copying in the 24th 
section of that act, making it a penal offence to harbor, concenl or give 
employment to a conscripted citizen, who did not answer the call of con- 
scription, and thereby, by the terms of that act, became a deserter ; and 
warning free American citizens that it v/ould be strictly enforced. For 
tlie last twenty-five years, when fugitive slaves were thus harbored and 
employed m violation of a constitutional law of Congress, these abolitionists 
wholly disregarded the 13th of Romans, and their christian duty "to 
support the government," and made resistance and sedition upon re- 
peated occasions. 

The result of all this is, that, in September, ISGo, white conscripts 
who were chained together in couples, were marched more than a mile 
publicly along Broadway, New York, guarded by armed soldiers. White 
men dragged in chains from their families, their homes, and their States, 
to aid in freeing negroes, at the South ! 

Similar sights were seen in Philadelphia, as reported by the Philadel- 
phia Age, which said: 

" Over the iron m inacles that bound the wrists of sevex'al, were thrown 
handkerchiefs, and the downcast look and sorrowing eye of the con- 
scripts told how deeply" they felt the degradation they were compelled to 
suffer. These men had committed no crime. Their names had been 
drawn from the fatal wheel; and, in the agony of doubt, whether they 
should remaia with their loved ones in these sore times of want and 
trial, or eagerly march to fill the ranks of the army in this " war for 
the African and his race," they had not promptly reported to the Pro- 
vost Marshal's office, and were called deserters. This sight, we are in- 
formed, is no extraordinary one. It is of frequent and almost hourly 
occurrence. Compelled to suffer the grossest indignities, thousands are 
daily tortured with the galling thought, that in this land of freedom, 
they must meet the fate of slaves." 

Ujnless these monomaniacs are soon put out of power, avc will be irre- 
trievably ruined and destroyed as a people, when our proper epitaph 
will be: 

HERE LIE A PEOPLE, 

WHO, I.N A VAIN ATTEMPT TO FREE SLAVES, 

LOST THEIR OWN UBERITES. 



\ 



^"^-^"^J^SMli^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






-n 




